Navigating by Stars: Using CMS Star Ratings to Choose Hospitals for Complex Cancer Surgery.

BACKGROUND: The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) developed risk-adjusted "Star Ratings," which serve as a guide for patients to compare hospital quality (1 star = lowest, 5 stars = highest). Although star ratings are not based on surgical care, for many procedures, surgical outcomes are concordant with star ratings. In an effort to address variability in hospital mortality after complex cancer surgery, the use of CMS Star Ratings to identify the safest hospitals was evaluated. METHODS: Patients older than 65 years of age who underwent complex cancer surgery (lobectomy, colectomy, gastrectomy, esophagectomy, pancreaticoduodenectomy) were evaluated in CMS Medicare Provider Analysis and Review files (2013-2016). The impact of reassignment was modeled by applying adjusted mortality rates of patients treated at 5-star hospitals to those at 1-star hospitals (Peters-Belson method). RESULTS: There were 105 823 patients who underwent surgery at 3146 hospitals. The 90-day mortality decreased with increasing star rating (1 star = 10.4%, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 9.8% to 11.1%; and 5 stars = 6.4%, 95% CI = 6.0% to 6.8%). Reassignment of patients from 1-star to 5-star hospitals (7.8% of patients) was predicted to save 84 Medicare beneficiaries each year. This impact varied by procedure (colectomy = 47 lives per year; gastrectomy = 5 lives per year). Overall, 2189 patients would have to change hospitals each year to improve outcomes (26 patients moved to save 1 life). CONCLUSIONS: Mortality after complex cancer surgery is associated with CMS Star Rating. However, the use of CMS Star Ratings by patients to identify the safest hospitals for cancer surgery would be relatively inefficient and of only modest impact.

Surgically Managed Signet Ring Cell Esophageal Carcinomas in the National Cancer Database.

BACKGROUND: Signet ring cell adenocarcinoma (SRC) is a less common histologic variant of esophageal adenocarcinoma (ACA). The low frequency of SRC limits the ability to make data-driven clinical recommendations for these patients. METHODS: The National Cancer Database was queried for adult patients with clinical stage I, II, or III adenocarcinoma of the noncervical esophagus diagnosed between 2004 and 2015 and stratified by SRC versus all other ACA variants. Cox proportional hazard regression models were adjusted for patient, tumor, and treatment characteristics. The role of surgery in SRC was evaluated among patients treated with chemoradiation alone versus chemoradiation with esophagectomy. RESULTS: Of the 681 SRC and 13,543 ACA patients who underwent esophagectomy, no significant differences in age, sex, race, or comorbidities were identified. Patients with SRC were more likely to have high-grade tumors (84% vs 41%, P < .001) and stage III tumors (47% vs 39%, P < .001) compared with patients with ACA. Complete (R0) resection was less common in SRC (81% vs 90%, P < .001). Adjusted 5-year mortality risk from surgery was higher for SRC patients compared with ACA patients (hazard ratio, 1.242; 95% confidence interval, 1.126-1.369; P < .001). Among SRC tumors, chemoradiation with esophagectomy was associated with superior survival (hazard ratio, 0.429; 95% confidence interval, 0.339-0.546; P < .001) compared with chemoradiation alone. CONCLUSIONS: Among surgically managed patients SRC appears to have a worse prognosis than ACA, which may reflect the tendency of SRC tumors to be higher grade and more locally advanced. However SRC histology does not appear to diminish the role of esophagectomy in the management of locoregionally confined esophageal cancer.

Differential Safety Between Top-Ranked Cancer Hospitals and Their Affiliates for Complex Cancer Surgery.

Importance: Leading cancer hospitals have increasingly shared their brands with other hospitals through growing networks of affiliations. However, the brand of top-ranked cancer hospitals may evoke distinct reputations for safety and quality that do not extend to all hospitals within these networks. Objective: To assess perioperative mortality of Medicare beneficiaries after complex cancer surgery across hospitals participating in networks with top-ranked cancer hospitals. Design, Setting, and Participants: A cross-sectional study was performed of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services 100% Medicare Provider and Analysis Review file from January 1, 2013, to December 31, 2016, for top-ranked cancer hospitals (as assessed by U.S. News and World Report) and affiliated hospitals that share their brand. Participants were 29 228 Medicare beneficiaries older than 65 years who underwent complex cancer surgery (lobectomy, esophagectomy, gastrectomy, colectomy, and pancreaticoduodenectomy [Whipple procedure]) between January 1, 2013, and October 1, 2016. Exposures: Undergoing complex cancer surgery at a top-ranked cancer hospital vs an affiliated hospital. Main Outcomes and Measures: Risk-adjusted 90-day mortality estimated using hierarchical logistic regression and comparison of the relative safety of hospitals within each cancer network estimated using standardized mortality ratios. Results: A total of 17 300 patients (59.2%; 8612 women and 8688 men; mean [SD] age, 74.7 [6.2] years) underwent complex cancer surgery at 59 top-ranked hospitals and 11 928 patients (40.8%; 6287 women and 5641 men; mean [SD] age, 76.2 [6.9] years) underwent complex cancer surgery at 343 affiliated hospitals. Overall, surgery performed at affiliated hospitals was associated with higher 90-day mortality (odds ratio, 1.40; 95% CI, 1.23-1.59; P < .001), with odds ratios that ranged from 1.32 (95% CI, 1.12-1.56; P = .001) for colectomy to 2.04 (95% CI, 1.41-2.95; P < .001) for gastrectomy. When the relative safety of each top-ranked cancer hospital was compared with its collective affiliates, the top-ranked hospital was safer than the affiliates in 41 of 49 studied networks (83.7%; 95% CI, 73.1%-93.3%). Conclusions and Relevance: The likelihood of surviving complex cancer surgery appears to be greater at top-ranked cancer hospitals compared with the affiliated hospitals that share their brand. Further investigation of performance across trusted cancer networks could enhance informed decision making for complex cancer care.

Variable impact of prior cancer history on the survival of lung cancer patients.

INTRODUCTION: Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer (NSCLC) is commonly diagnosed in patients who have survived a prior malignancy. However, it is currently unclear whether NSCLC patient survival is impacted by the potential for previously-treated malignancies to recur. Understanding the impact of a prior cancer history on NSCLC survival could not only enhance decision making but could affect eligibility for NSCLC studies. METHODS: The National Cancer Database (NCDB) was queried for NSCLC patients (stage I-IV) diagnosed between 2004-2014. Kaplan-Meier survival curves and multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression models were estimated to analyze overall survival across a variety of treatment approaches and stages in the presence and absence of a prior cancer history. RESULTS: A total of 821,323 patients with a newly diagnosed NSCLC were identified including 179,512 (21.9%) with a prior history of cancer. The unadjusted 5-year overall survival of patients with a prior cancer history (9.8%) was slightly better to those without a cancer history (9.5%, 95% CI 11.76-11.84, P < 0.0001). However, adjusted analyses revealed the impact of prior cancer history was extremely heterogenous across stage and treatment approach. Ultimately, 51.4% of patients fell into a subgroup in which prior cancer history appeared to compromise survival, 16.3% in which the difference was not significant, and 32.3% in which prior cancer was associated with increased survival. Patients with earlier-staged tumors were the most negatively NSCLC impacted by prior cancer history. CONCLUSIONS: The association between prior cancer history and survival of newly diagnosed NSCLC patients is highly variable and to some degree reflects a patient's potential for cure.

Quality Versus Quantity: The Potential Impact of Public Reporting of Hospital Safety for Complex Cancer Surgery.

OBJECTIVE: To estimate the potential mortality reduction if patients chose the safest hospitals for complex cancer surgery. BACKGROUND: Mortality after complex oncologic surgery is highly variable across hospitals, and directing patients away from unsafe hospitals could potentially improve survivorship. Hospital quality measures are becoming increasingly accessible at a time when patients are more engaged in choosing providers. It is currently unclear what information to share with patients to maximally capitalize on patient-centered realignment. METHODS: The National Cancer Database was queried for adults undergoing 5 complex cancer surgeries (pulmonary lobectomy, pneumonectomy, esophagectomy, gastrectomy, and colectomy) for a primary cancer between 2008 and 2012. Risk-standardized mortality rate (RSMR) methodology, currently used by Medicare-based hospital rating systems, was used to classify hospitals as "safest" and "least safe" by procedure. Patients were modeled moving from "least safe" to "safest" hospitals and the potential number of lives saved through patient realignment determined. As surgical volume has historically been used to distinguish safe hospitals, comparisons were made to models moving patients from low-volume to high-volume hospitals. RESULTS: A total of 292,040 patients were analyzed. In an optimally modeled scenario, realignment using RSMR would result in a greater number of lives saved (3592 vs 2161, P < 0.01) and require only 15 patients to change hospitals to save a life, compared to 78 patients using volume models (P < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Public reporting of hospital safety, specifically based on RSMR instead of volume, has the potential to lead to meaningful reductions in surgical mortality after complex cancer surgery, even in the setting of a modest patient realignment.

Why Travel for Complex Cancer Surgery? Americans React to 'Brand-Sharing' Between Specialty Cancer Hospitals and Their Affiliates.

INTRODUCTION: Leading cancer hospitals have increasingly shared their 'brand' with smaller hospitals through affiliations. Because each brand evokes a distinct reputation for the care provided, 'brand-sharing' has the potential to impact the public's ability to differentiate the safety and quality within hospital networks. The general public was surveyed to determine the perceived similarities and differences in the safety and quality of complex cancer surgery performed at top cancer hospitals and their smaller affiliate hospitals. METHODS: A national, web-based KnowledgePanel (GfK) survey of American adults was conducted. Respondents were asked about their beliefs regarding the quality and safety of complex cancer surgery at a large, top-ranked cancer hospital and a smaller, local hospital, both in the presence and absence of an affiliation between the hospitals. RESULTS: A total of 1010 surveys were completed (58.1% response rate). Overall, 85% of respondents felt 'motivated' to travel an hour for complex surgery at a larger hospital specializing in cancer, over a smaller local hospital. However, if the smaller hospital was affiliated with a top-ranked cancer hospital, 31% of the motivated respondents changed their preference to the smaller hospital. When asked to compare leading cancer hospitals and their smaller affiliates, 47% of respondents felt that surgical safety, 66% felt guideline compliance, and 53% felt cure rates would be the same at both hospitals. CONCLUSIONS: Approximately half of surveyed Americans did not distinguish the quality and safety of surgical care at top-ranked cancer hospitals from their smaller affiliates, potentially decreasing their motivation to travel to top centers for complex surgical care.