Cause of death the first year after curative colorectal cancer surgery; a prolonged impact of the surgery in elderly colorectal cancer patients.

BACKGROUND: The 1-year mortality after colorectal cancer surgery is high and explains age related differences in colorectal cancer survival. To gain better insight in its etiology, cause of death for these patients was studied. METHODS: All 1924 patients who had a resection for stage I-III colorectal cancer from 2006 to 2008 in the Western region of the Netherlands were identified. Data were merged with cause of death data from the Central Bureau of Statistics Netherlands. To calculate excess mortality as compared to the general population, national data were used. RESULTS: Overall 13.2% of patients died within the first postoperative year. One-year mortality increased with age. It was as high as 43% in elderly patients that underwent emergency surgery. In 75% of patients, death was attributed to the colorectal cancer. In 25% of all patients, registered deaths were attributed to postoperative complications. Elderly patients with comorbidity more frequently died due to complications (p < 0.01). Death of other causes was similar to background mortality according to age group. CONCLUSION: In the presently studied cohort of patients that died within one year of surgery, cause of death was predominantly attributed to colorectal cancer. However, because it is not to be expected that in this cohort the number of deaths from recurrences is very high, the excess 1-year mortality indicates a prolonged impact of the surgery, especially in elderly patients. Therefore, in these patients we should focus on limiting the physiological impact of the surgery and be more involved in the post-hospital period.

Impact of centralization of pancreatic cancer surgery on resection rates and survival.

BACKGROUND: Centralization of pancreatic surgery has been shown to reduce postoperative mortality. It is unknown whether resection rates and survival have also improved. The aim of this study was to analyse the impact of nationwide centralization of pancreatic surgery on resection rates and long-term survival. METHODS: All patients diagnosed in the Netherlands between 2000 and 2009 with cancer of the pancreatic head were identified in the Netherlands Cancer Registry. Changes in referral pattern, resection rates and survival after pancreatoduodenectomy were analysed. Multivariable regression analysis was used to assess the impact of hospital volume (20 or more procedures per year) on survival after resection. RESULTS: Between 2000 and 2009, 11,160 patients were diagnosed with cancer of the pancreatic head. The resection rate increased from 10.7 per cent in 2000-2004 to 15.3 per cent in 2005-2009 (P < 0.001). No significant difference in survival after resection was observed between the two intervals (P = 0.135), although survival was significantly better in high-volume hospitals (median survival 18 months versus 16 months in low/medium-volume hospitals; P = 0.017). After adjustment for patient and tumour characteristics, high hospital volume remained associated with better overall survival after resection (hazard ratio 0.70, 95 per cent confidence interval 0.58 to 0.84; P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Centralization of pancreatic cancer surgery led to increased resection rates. High-volume centres had significantly better survival rates. Centralization improves patient outcomes and should be encouraged.

The Dutch surgical colorectal audit.

INTRODUCTION: In 2009, the nationwide Dutch Surgical Colorectal Audit (DSCA) was initiated by the Association of Surgeons of the Netherlands (ASN) to monitor, evaluate and improve colorectal cancer care. The DSCA is currently widely used as a blueprint for the initiation of other audits, coordinated by the Dutch Institute for Clinical Auditing (DICA). This article illustrates key elements of the DSCA and results of three years of auditing. METHODS: Key elements include: a leading role of the professional association with integration of the audit in the national quality assurance policy; web-based registration by medical specialists; weekly updated online feedback to participants; annual external data verification with other data sources; improvement projects. RESULTS: In two years, all Dutch hospitals participated in the audit. Case-ascertainment was 92% in 2010 and 95% in 2011. External data verification by comparison with the Netherlands Cancer Registry (NCR) showed high concordance of data items. Within three years, guideline compliance for diagnostics, preoperative multidisciplinary meetings and standardised reporting increased; complication-, re-intervention and postoperative mortality rates decreased significantly. DISCUSSION: The success of the DSCA is the result of effective surgical collaboration. The leading role of the ASN in conducting the audit resulted in full participation of all colorectal surgeons in the Netherlands. By integrating the audit into the ASNs' quality assurance policy, it could be used to set national quality standards. Future challenges include reduction of administrative burden; expansion to a multidisciplinary registration; and addition of financial information and patient reported outcomes to the audit data.

Focusing on desired outcomes of care after colon cancer resections; hospital variations in 'textbook outcome'.

AIMS: We propose a summarizing measure for outcome indicators, representing the proportion of patients for whom all desired short-term outcomes of care (a 'textbook outcome') is realized. The aim of this study was to investigate hospital variation in the proportion of patients with a 'textbook outcome' after colon cancer resections in the Netherlands. METHODS: Patients who underwent a colon cancer resection in 2010 in the Netherlands were included in the Dutch Surgical Colorectal Audit. A textbook outcome was defined as hospital survival, radical resection, no reintervention, no ostomy, no adverse outcome and a hospital stay < 14 days. We calculated the number of hospitals with a significantly higher (positive outlier) or lower (negative outlier) Observed/Expected (O/E) textbook outcome than average. As quality measures may be more discriminative in a low-risk population, analyses were repeated for low-risk patients only. RESULTS: A total of 5582 patients, treated in 82 hospitals were included. Average textbook outcome was 49% (range 26-71%). Eight hospitals were identified as negative outliers. In these hospitals a 'textbook outcome' was realized in 35% vs. 52% in average hospitals (p < 0.01). In a sub-analysis for low-risk patients, only one additional negative outlier was identified. CONCLUSIONS: The textbook outcome, representing the proportion of patients with a perfect hospitalization, gives a simple comprehensive summary of hospital performance, while preventing indicator driven practice. Therewith the 'textbook outcome' is meaningful for patients, providers, insurance companies and healthcare inspectorate.

Nonelective colon cancer resections in elderly patients: results from the dutch surgical colorectal audit.

AIMS: The aim of the study was to assess which factors contribute to postoperative mortality, especially in elderly patients who undergo emergency colon cancer resections, using a nationwide population-based database. METHODS: 6,161 patients (1,172 nonelective) who underwent a colon cancer resection in 2010 in the Netherlands were included. Risk factors for postoperative mortality were investigated using a multivariate logistic regression model for different age groups, elective and nonelective patients separately. RESULTS: For both elective and nonelective patients, mortality risk increased with increasing age. For nonelective elderly patients (80+ years), each additional risk factor increased the mortality risk. For a nonelective patient of 80+ years with an American Society of Anesthesiologists score of III+ and a left hemicolectomy or extended resection, postoperative mortality rate was 41% compared with 7% in patients without additional risk factors. CONCLUSIONS: For elderly patients with two or more additional risk factors, a nonelective resection should be considered a high-risk procedure with a mortality risk of up to 41%. The results of this study could be used to adequately inform patient and family and should have consequences for composing an operative team.

Use of different comorbidity scores for risk-adjustment in the evaluation of quality of colorectal cancer surgery: does it matter?

AIMS: Comorbidity affects outcomes after colorectal cancer surgery. However, it's importance in risk adjustment is unclear and different measures are being used. This study aims to assess its impact on post-operative outcomes. METHODS: All 2204 patients who were operated on for stage I-III colorectal cancer in the Midwestern region of the Netherlands between January 1, 2006 and December 31, 2008 were analyzed. A multivariate two-step enter-model was used to evaluate the effect of the American Society of Anaesthesiologists Physical Status classification (ASA) score, the sum of diseased organ systems (SDOS), the Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI) and a combination of specific comorbidities on 30-day mortality, surgical complications and a prolonged length of stay (LOS). For each retrieved model, and for a model without comorbidity, a ROC curve was made. RESULTS: High ASA score, SDOS, CCI, pulmonary disease and previous malignancy were all strongly associated with 30-day mortality and a prolonged LOS. High ASA score and gastro-intestinal comorbidity were risk factors for surgical complications. Predictive values for all comorbidity measures were similar with regard to all adverse post-operative outcomes. Omitting comorbidity only had a marginal effect on the predictive value of the model. CONCLUSION: Irrespective of the measure used, comorbidity is an independent risk factor for adverse outcome after colorectal surgery. However, the importance of comorbidity in risk-adjustment models is limited. Probably the work and costs of data collection for auditing can be reduced, without compromising risk-adjustment.

Combining process indicators to evaluate quality of care for surgical patients with colorectal cancer: are scores consistent with short-term outcome?

OBJECTIVE: To determine if composite measures based on process indicators are consistent with short-term outcome indicators in surgical colorectal cancer care. DESIGN: Longitudinal analysis of consistency between composite measures based on process indicators and outcome indicators for 85 Dutch hospitals. SETTING: The Dutch Surgical Colorectal Audit database, the Netherlands. PARTICIPANTS: 4732 elective patients with colon carcinoma and 2239 with rectum carcinoma treated in 85 hospitals were included in the analyses. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: All available process indicators were aggregated into five different composite measures. The association of the different composite measures with risk-adjusted postoperative mortality and morbidity was analysed at the patient and hospital level. RESULTS: At the patient level, only one of the composite measures was negatively associated with morbidity for rectum carcinoma. At the hospital level, a strong negative association was found between composite measures and hospital mortality and morbidity rates for rectum carcinoma (p<0.05), and hospital morbidity rates for colon carcinoma. CONCLUSIONS: For individual patients, a high score on the composite measures based on process indicators is not associated with better short-term outcome. However, at the hospital level, a good score on the composite measures based on process indicators was consistent with more favourable risk-adjusted short-term outcome rates.

Variation in case-mix between hospitals treating colorectal cancer patients in the Netherlands.

AIMS: The purpose of this study was to determine how expected mortality based on case-mix varies between colorectal cancer patients treated in non-teaching, teaching and university hospitals, or high, intermediate and low-volume hospitals in the Netherlands. MATERIAL AND METHODS: We used the database of the Dutch Surgical Colorectal Audit 2010. Factors predicting mortality after colon and rectum carcinoma resections were identified using logistic regression models. Using these models, expected mortality was calculated for each patient. RESULTS: 8580 patients treated in 90 hospitals were included in the analysis. For colon carcinoma, hospitals' expected mortality ranged from 1.5 to 14%. Average expected mortality was lower in patients treated in high-volume hospitals than in low-volume hospitals (5.0 vs. 4.3%, p < 0.05). For rectum carcinoma, hospitals expected mortality varied from 0.5 to 7.5%. Average expected mortality was higher in patients treated in non-teaching and teaching hospitals than in university hospitals (2.7 and 2.3 vs. 1.3%, p < 0.01). Furthermore, rectum carcinoma patients treated in high-volume hospitals had a higher expected mortality than patients treated in low-volume hospitals (2.6 vs. 2.2% p < 0.05). We found no differences in risk-adjusted mortality. CONCLUSIONS: High-risk patients are not evenly distributed between hospitals. Using the expected mortality as an integrated measure for case-mix can help to gain insight in where high-risk patients go. The large variation in expected mortality between individual hospitals, hospital types and volume groups underlines the need for risk-adjustment when comparing hospital performances.

Systematic review and meta-analysis of the volume-outcome relationship in pancreatic surgery.

BACKGROUND: Many studies have shown lower mortality and higher survival rates after pancreatic surgery with high-volume providers, suggesting that centralization of pancreatic surgery can improve outcomes. The methodological quality of these studies is open to question. This study involves a systematic review of the volume-outcome relationship for pancreatic surgery with a meta-analysis of studies considered to be of good quality. METHODS: A systematic search of electronic databases up to February 2010 was performed to identify all primary studies examining the effects of hospital or surgeon volume on postoperative mortality and survival after pancreatic surgery. All articles were critically appraised with regard to methodological quality and risk of bias. After strict inclusion, meta-analysis assuming a random-effects model was done to estimate the effect of higher surgeon or hospital volume on patient outcome. RESULTS: Fourteen studies were included in the meta-analysis. The results showed a significant association between hospital volume and postoperative mortality (odds ratio 0.32, 95 per cent confidence interval 0.16 to 0.64), and between hospital volume and survival (hazard ratio 0.79, 0.70 to 0.89).The effect of surgeon volume on postoperative mortality was not significant (odds ratio 0.46, 0.17 to 1.26). Significant heterogeneity was seen in the analysis of hospital volume and mortality. Sensitivity analysis showed no correlation with the extent of risk adjustment or study country; after removing one outlier study, the result was homogeneous. The data did not suggest publication bias. CONCLUSION: There was a consistent association between high hospital volume and lower postoperative mortality rates with improved long-term survival.

A systematic review and meta-analysis of the volume-outcome relationship in the surgical treatment of breast cancer. Are breast cancer patients better of with a high volume provider?

AIMS: To conduct a systematic review of the literature on the volume-outcome relationship for the surgical treatment of breast cancer with consideration of the methodological quality of the available evidence and to perform a meta-analysis on the studies of considered good quality. METHODS: A systematic search was done to identify all articles examining the effects of hospital or surgeon volume on clinical outcome of the surgical treatment of breast cancer. Reviews, opinion articles and surveys were excluded. All articles were critically appraised on methodological quality and risk of bias. After strict inclusion, meta-analysis assuming a random effects model was done to estimate the effect of higher hospital or surgeon volume on patient outcome. RESULTS: We found 12 studies of good methodological quality which could be included for meta-analysis. The results showed a significant association between high volume providers and an improved survival. The association is the most robust for surgeon volume (HR 0.80 (0.71-0.90) and RR 0.85 (0.80-0.90). In addition there is an effect of hospital volume on the in-hospital mortality, although the mortality was very low (0.1-0.2%). Results of meta-analysis were heterogeneous. Sensitivity analysis showed a larger effect size for studies also adjusting for comorbidity for both studies on hospital and surgeon volume. The data were not suggestive for publication bias. CONCLUSIONS: The results show that survival after breast cancer surgery is significantly associated with high volume providers.

Volume and outcome in colorectal cancer surgery.

AIMS: There is a growing consensus to concentrate high-risk surgical procedures to high volume surgeons in high volume hospitals. However, there is fierce debate about centralizing more common malignancies such as colorectal cancer. The objective of this review is to conduct a meta-analysis using the best evidence available on the volume-outcome relationship for colorectal cancer treatment. METHODS: A systematic search was performed to identify all relevant articles studying the relation between hospital and/or surgeon volume and clinical outcomes for colorectal cancer. Using strict inclusion criteria, 23 articles were selected concerning colon cancer, rectal cancer or both diseases together as 'colorectal cancer'. Pooled estimated effect sizes were calculated using the casemix adjusted outcomes of the highest volume group opposed to the lowest volume group. RESULTS: High volume hospitals have a significantly lower postoperative mortality in half of the pooled results. Non significant results show a trend in favour of high volume hospitals. All results showed a significantly better long term survival in high volume hospitals. High volume surgeons have a lower postoperative mortality, although evidence is sparse. All analyses showed a significantly better long term survival in favour of high volume surgeons. CONCLUSIONS: The results show a clear and consistent relation between high volume providers and improved long term survival. This applies to both high volume hospitals and high volume surgeons. Most results show a relation between high volume providers and a reduced postoperative mortality, but evidence is less convincing. In the ideal world, extensive population based audit registrations with casemix adjusted feedback should make rigid minimal volume standards obsolete. Until then, using volume criteria for hospitals and surgeons treating colorectal cancer can improve mortality and especially long term survival.

Volume- or outcome-based referral to improve quality of care for esophageal cancer surgery in The Netherlands.

Recently, in The Netherlands esophageal resections for cancer are banned from hospitals with an annual volume less than 10. In this study we evaluate the validity of this specific volume cut-off, based on a review of the literature and an analysis of the available data on esophagectomies in our country. In addition, we compare the expected benefits of volume-based referral to the results of a regional centralization process based on differences in outcome (outcome-based referral).