Electronic medical record: research tool for pancreatic cancer?

BACKGROUND: A novel data warehouse based on automated retrieval from an institutional health care information system (HIS) was made available to be compared with a traditional prospectively maintained surgical database. METHODS: A newly established institutional data warehouse at a single-institution academic medical center autopopulated by HIS was queried for International Classification of Diseases, 9th Revision, Clinical Modification (ICD-9-CM) diagnosis codes for pancreatic neoplasm. Patients with ICD-9-CM diagnosis codes for pancreatic neoplasm were captured. A parallel query was performed using a prospective database populated by manual entry. Duplicated patients and those unique to either data set were identified. All patients were manually reviewed to determine the accuracy of diagnosis. RESULTS: A total of 1107 patients were identified from the HIS-linked data set with pancreatic neoplasm from 1999-2009. Of these, 254 (22.9%) patients were also captured by the surgical database, whereas 853 (77.1%) patients were only in the HIS-linked data set. Manual review of the HIS-only group demonstrated that 45.0% of patients were without identifiable pancreatic pathology, suggesting erroneous capture, whereas 36.3% of patients were consistent with pancreatic neoplasm and 18.7% with other pancreatic pathology. Of the 394 patients identified by the surgical database, 254 (64.5%) patients were captured by HIS, whereas 140 (35.5%) patients were not. Manual review of patients only captured by the surgical database demonstrated 85.9% with pancreatic neoplasm and 14.1% with other pancreatic pathology. Finally, review of the 254 patient overlap demonstrated that 80.3% of patients had pancreatic neoplasm and 19.7% had other pancreatic pathology. CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that cautious interpretation of administrative data rely only on ICD-9-CM diagnosis codes and clinical correlation through previously validated mechanisms.

Rankings versus reality in pancreatic cancer surgery: a real-world comparison.

BACKGROUND: Patients are increasingly confronted with systems for rating hospitals. However, the correlations between publicized ratings and actual outcomes after pancreatectomy are unknown. METHODS: The Massachusetts Division of Health Care Finance and Policy Hospital Inpatient Discharge Database was queried to identify pancreatic cancer resections carried out during 2005-2009. Hospitals performing fewer than 10 pancreatic resections in the 5-year period were excluded. Primary outcomes included mortality, complications, median length of stay (LoS) and a composite outcomes score (COS) combining primary outcomes. Ranks were determined and compared for: (i) volume, and (ii) ratings identified from consumer-directed hospital ratings including the US News & World Report (USN), Consumer Reports, Healthgrades and Hospital Compare. An inter-rater reliability analysis was performed and correlation coefficients (r) between outcomes and ratings, and between rating systems were calculated. RESULTS: Eleven hospitals in which a total of 804 pancreatectomies were conducted were identified. Surgical volume correlated with overall outcome, but was not the strongest indicator. The highest correlation referred to that between USN rank and overall outcome. Mortality was most strongly correlated with Healthgrades ratings (r = 0.50); however, Healthgrades ratings demonstrated poorer correlations with all other outcomes. Consumer Reports ratings showed inverse correlations. CONCLUSIONS: The plethora of publicly available hospital ratings systems demonstrates heterogeneity. Volume remains a good but imperfect indicator of surgical outcomes. Further systematic investigation into which measures predict quality outcomes in pancreatic cancer surgery will benefit both patients and providers.

Does increasing insurance improve outcomes for US cancer patients?

BACKGROUND: Although debate continues on US healthcare and insurance reform, data are lacking on the effect of insurance on community-level cancer outcomes. Therefore, the objective of the present study was to examine the association of insurance and cancer outcomes. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The US Census Bureau Current Population Survey, Small Area Health Insurance Estimates (2000) were used for the rates of uninsurance. Counties were divided into tertiles according to the uninsurance rates. The data were compared with the cancer incidence and survival for patients residing in counties captured by the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database (2000-2006). Aggregate patient data were collected of US adults (aged ≥18 y) diagnosed with the following cancers: pancreatic, esophageal, liver or bile duct, lung or bronchial, ovarian, colorectal, breast, prostate, melanoma, and thyroid. The outcomes included the stage at diagnosis, surgery, and survival. Univariate tests and proportional hazards were calculated. RESULTS: The US uninsurance rate was 14.2%, and the range for the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results counties was 8.3%-24.1%. Overall, patients from lower uninsurance rate counties demonstrated longer median survival. Adjusting for patient characteristics and cancer stage (for each cancer), the patients in the higher uninsurance rate counties demonstrated greater mortality (8%-15% increased risk on proportional hazards). The county uninsurance rate was associated with the stage at diagnosis for all cancers, except pancreatic and esophageal, and was also associated with the likelihood of being recommended for cancer-directed surgery (for all cancers). CONCLUSIONS: Health insurance coverage at a community level appears to influence survival for patients with cancer. Additional investigations are needed to examine whether individual versus community associations exist and how best to surmount barriers to cancer care.

Outcomes following resection of pancreatic cancer.

Pancreatic cancer is an aggressive and highly lethal malignancy. Surgical resection is a modest tool, but it provides the only potential for curative therapy and often prolongs survival. This article reviews the progress made on both local and national levels towards an era of safer pancreatic surgery, while discussing both perioperative outcomes and long-term survival after resection.

Perioperative mortality after pancreatectomy: a risk score to aid decision-making.

BACKGROUND: Undergoing a pancreatectomy obligates the patient to risks and benefits. For complex operations such as pancreatectomy, the objective assessment of baseline risks may be useful in decision-making. We developed an integer-based risk score estimating in-hospital mortality after pancreatectomy, incorporating institution-specific mortality rates to enhance its use. METHODS: Pancreatic resections were identified from the Nationwide Inpatient Sample (1998-2006), and categorized as proximal, distal, or nonspecified by the International Classification of Diseases, 9th edition. Logistic regression and bootstrap methods were used to estimate in-hospital mortality using demographics, diagnosis, comorbidities (Charlson index), procedure, and hospital volume; 80% of this cohort was selected randomly to create the score and 20% was used for validation. Score assignments were subsequently individually fitted to risk distributions around specific mortality rates. RESULTS: Sixteen thousand one hundred sixteen patient discharges were identified. Nationwide in-hospital mortality was 5.3%. Integers were assigned to predictors (age group, Charlson index, sex, diagnosis, pancreatectomy type, and hospital volume) and applied to an additive score. Three score groups were defined to stratify in-hospital mortality (national mortality, 1.3%, 4.9%, and 14.3%; P < .0001), with sufficient discrimination of derivation and validation sets (C statistics, 0.72 and 0.74). Score groups were shifted algorithmically to calculate risk based on institutional data (eg, with institutional mortality of 2.0%, low-, medium-, and high-risk patient groups had 0.5%, 1.9%, and 5.4% mortality, respectively). A web-based tool was developed and is available online (http://www.umassmed.edu/surgery/panc_mortality_custom.aspx). CONCLUSION: To maximize patient benefit, objective assessment of risk for major procedures is necessary. We developed a Surgical Outcomes Analysis and Research risk score predicting pancreatectomy mortality that combines national and institution-specific data to enhance decision-making. This type of risk stratification tool may identify opportunities to improve care for patients undergoing specific operative procedures.

Is it worth looking? Abdominal imaging after pancreatic cancer resection: a national study.

INTRODUCTION: Abdominal imaging is often performed after pancreatic cancer resection. We attempted to quantify the volume and estimate the cost of complex imaging after pancreatectomy nationwide, and to determine whether their frequent use confers benefit. METHODS: Patients with pancreatic adenocarcinoma who underwent resection were identified in Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results-Medicare (1991-2005). Claims for abdominal imaging ≤5 years after resection were analyzed. Patients receiving annual CT scans were identified. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed. To assess frequency of annual CT scanning in patients with superior survival, the top decile was further analyzed. RESULTS: Eleven thousand eight hundred fifty studies were performed on 2,217 patients. Ten thousand five hundred forty-two (89%) were CT scans. The median number of scans doubled from three in 1991 to six in 2005 (p < 0.0001). Among patients with sufficient survival to allow for analysis, 51.3% received annual CT scans, while only 32.4% of top-performing patients received annual scans. Univariate analysis of the 10% of patients with superior survival did not reveal any significant benefit associated with annual imaging. CONCLUSION: Utilization of complex imaging after pancreatic cancer resection has increased substantially among Medicare beneficiaries, driven primarily by an increasing number of CT scans. Our study demonstrated no significant survival benefit among patients who received scans on a routine basis.

Colectomy performance improvement within NSQIP 2005-2008.

BACKGROUND: All open and laparoscopic colectomies submitted to the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (ACS NSQIP) were evaluated for trends and improvements in operative outcomes. METHODS: 48,247 adults (≥18 y old) underwent colectomy in ACS NSQIP, as grouped by surgical approach (laparoscopic versus open), urgency (emergent versus elective), and operative year (2005 to 2008). Primary outcomes measured morbidity, mortality, perioperative, and postoperative complications. RESULTS: The proportion of laparoscopic colectomies performed increased annually (26.3% to 34.0%), while open colectomies decreased (73.7% to 66.0%; P < 0.0001). Most emergent colectomies were open procedures (93.5%) representing 24.3% of all open cases. The overall risk-adjusted morbidity and mortality for all colectomy procedures did not show a statistically significant change over time, however, morbidity and mortality increased among open colectomies (r = 0.03) and decreased among laparoscopic colectomies (r = -0.04; P < 0.0001). Postoperative complications reduced significantly including superficial surgical site infections (9.17% to 8.20%, P < 0.004), pneumonia (4.60% to 3.97%, P < 0.0001), and sepsis (4.72%, 2005; 6.81%, 2006; 5.62%, 2007; 5.09%, 2008; P < 0.0002). Perioperative improvements included operative time (169.2 to 160.0 min), PRBC transfusions (0.27 to 0.25 units) and length of stay (10.5 to 6.61 d; P < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: It appears that laparoscopic colectomies are growing in popularity over open colectomies, but the need for emergent open procedures remains unchanged. Across all colectomies, however, key postoperative and perioperative complications have improved over time. Participation in ACS NSQIP demonstrates quality improvement and may encourage greater enrollment.

Tumor registry versus physician medical record review: a direct comparison of patients with pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors.

PURPOSE: Tumor registry (TR) data are becoming more prominently cited in research through increased use of the National Cancer Database. We aimed to establish the accuracy of TR data by comparing them with physician medical record review (MD review) using pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (NETs) as an example. METHODS: For MD review, the health information system of an academic medical center was queried for patients with pancreatic International Classification of Diseases, ninth revision (ICD-9), codes from January 2000 to August 2008. A single physician investigator analyzed those medical records and identified patients with pancreatic NETs. For TR data, patients with pancreatic NETs were identified by two separate strategies. For the period of January 2000 to December 2006, patients were identified through manual review of pathology reports, admission and discharge sheets, and clinic visit logs. For January 2007 to August 2008, patients were identified using an automated case-finding program. RESULTS: In MD review, 1,192 patients with pancreatic ICD-9 codes were identified, 34 of whom were found to have pancreatic NETs. The TR indicated 15 patients with pancreatic NETs, four of whom were not identified during MD review. Of the total 38 patients identified by either strategy, pancreatic NET identification rate of the TR was 39.5% compared with 89.5% in MD review. CONCLUSION: Academic TR analysis indicates a substantial proportion of patients with pancreatic NETs are not identified when compared with MD review. Most instances of patients going unidentified are the result of registry time lag and case-finding methodologies; specifically, physicians may define tumors with malignant potential differently. This may be applicable to other individual tumor registries as well as aggregate registry-based national studies.

Effect of centre volume and high donor risk index on liver allograft survival.

BACKGROUND: A growth in the utilization of high-risk allografts is reflective of a critical national shortage and the increasing waiting list mortality. Using risk-adjusted models, the aim of the present study was to determine whether a volume-outcome relationship existed among liver transplants at high risk for allograft failure. METHODS: From 2002 to 2008, the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients (SRTR) database for all adult deceased donor liver transplants (n = 31 587) was queried. Transplant centres (n = 102) were categorized by volume into tertiles: low (LVC; 31 cases/year), medium (MVC: 64 cases/year) and high (HVC: 102 cases/year). Donor risk comparison groups were stratified by quartiles of the Donor Risk Index (DRI) spectrum: low risk (DRI ≤ 1.63), moderate risk (1.64 > DRI > 1.90), high risk (1.91 > DRI > 2.26) and very high risk (DRI ≥ 2.27). RESULTS: HVC more frequently used higher-risk livers (median DRI: LVC: 1.82, MVC: 1.90, HVC: 1.97; P < 0.0001) and achieved better risk adjusted allograft survival outcomes compared with LVC (HR: 0.90, 95%CI: 0.85-0.95). For high and very high risk groups, transplantation at a HVC did contribute to improved graft survival [high risk: hazard ratio (HR): 0.85, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.76-0.96; Very High Risk: HR: 0.88, 95%CI: 0.78-0.99]. CONCLUSION: While DRI remains an important aspect of allograft survival prediction models, liver transplantation at a HVC appears to result in improved allograft survival with high and very high risk DRI organs compared with LVC.

Impact of center volume on outcomes of increased-risk liver transplants.

The use of high-risk donor livers, which is reflective of the gross national shortage of organs available for transplantation, has gained momentum. Despite the demand, many marginal livers are discarded annually. We evaluated the impact of center volume on survival outcomes associated with liver transplantation using high-donor risk index (DRI) allografts. We queried the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients database for deceased donor liver transplants (n = 31,576) performed between 2002 and 2008 for patients who were 18 years old or older, and we excluded partial and multiple liver transplants. A high-DRI cohort (n = 15,668), which was composed of patients receiving grafts with DRIs > 1.90, was analyzed separately. Transplant centers (n = 102) were categorized into tertiles by their annual procedure volumes: high-volume centers (HVCs; 78-215 cases per year), medium-volume centers (MVCs; 49-77 cases per year), and low-volume centers (LVCs; 5-48 cases per year). The endpoints were allograft survival and recipient survival. In comparison with their lower volume counterparts, HVCs used donors with higher mean DRIs (2.07 for HVCs, 2.01 for MVCs, and 1.91 for LVCs), more donors who were 60 years old or older (18.02% for HVCs, 16.85% for MVCs, and 12.39% for LVCs), more donors who died after a stroke (46.52% for HVCs, 43.71% for MVCs, and 43.36% for LVCs), and more donation after cardiac death organs (5.04% for HVCs, 4.45% for MVCs, and 3.51% for LVCs, all P values < 0.001). Multivariate risk-adjusted frailty models showed that increased procedure volume at a transplant center led to decreased risks of allograft failure [hazard ratio (HR) = 0.93, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.89-0.98, P = 0.002] and recipient death (HR = 0.90, 95% CI = 0.83-0.97, P = 0.004) for high-DRI liver transplants. In conclusion, HVCs more frequently used higher DRI livers and achieved better risk-adjusted allograft and recipient survival. A greater understanding of the outcomes of transplantation with high-DRI livers may improve their utilization, the postoperative outcomes, and future allocation practices.

Underutilization of therapy for hepatocellular carcinoma in the medicare population.

BACKGROUND: The incidence of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is increasing in the United States, and the care of these patients remains highly specialized and complex. Multiple treatment options are available for HCC but their use and effectiveness remain unknown. METHODS: Using Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)-Medicare linked data, 8730 patients who were diagnosed with HCC between 1991 and 2005 were identified. Therapy included surgical resection (8.7%), liver transplantation (1.4%), ablation (3.6%), or transarterial chemoembolization (16%). Patients who received no or palliative-only treatment were grouped together (NoTx; 70.3%). Patient, disease, and tumor factors were examined as determinants of therapy. RESULTS: HCC is increasing in the Medicare population. The median age at diagnosis was 75.1 years and 73.6% of patients were coded as white, 17.2% as Asian, 8.3% as black, and 0.9% as other race. The rate of therapy increased over time, but only 29.7% of patients overall underwent therapy. In patients with early stage HCC, only 43.1% underwent therapy. In the NoTx group, 49.4% did not have cirrhosis, 36.0% had tumors that measured <5 cm, and 39.8% were diagnosed with stage I or II disease when variables were complete. The use of therapy for all HCC patients increased over time, correlating with a commensurate increase in median survival. In multivariate regression analysis, patients who received any modality of treatment achieved significant benefit compared with the NoTx group (odds ratio, 0.41; 95% confidence interval, 0.39-0.43). CONCLUSIONS: In the Medicare population, HCC patients who received therapy experienced a substantial survival advantage over their nonoperative peers (NoTx). Despite evidence that many patients had favorable biological characteristics, <30% of patients diagnosed with HCC received any treatment.

Potential benefit of resection for stage IV gastric cancer: a national survey.

INTRODUCTION: Controversy exists as to whether patients with stage IV gastric cancer should undergo surgical resection. We examined the association of gastrectomy with survival in this population. METHODS: Stage IV gastric cancer diagnoses were identified using the SEER database (1988-2005). Analyses examined three subgroups divided on the basis of whether cancer-directed surgery was recommended and performed. Univariate analyses included chi-square and Kaplan-Meier survival analyses. Cox proportional hazards modeling was performed to assess independent determinants of survival. RESULTS: Of 66,751 identified gastric cancer patients, 23,830 had stage IV disease. Resected patients had a significant survival advantage; survival outcomes of patients who had been recommended for, but had not undergone, surgery were identical to that of patients who had not been recommended (3 months vs. 9 months for resected, p < 0.0001). Furthermore, resection status was the most significant independent predictor of increased risk of death (hazard ratios 2.0 for non-cancer-directed surgery groups). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with stage IV gastric cancer who undergo resection, a highly selected population, have significantly greater survival than unresected patients, including those who were recommended for, but did not receive, resection. Stage IV gastric cancer patients who are reasonable operative candidates should be offered resection.

Redefining mortality after pancreatic cancer resection.

INTRODUCTION: Distinct outcome measures such as in-hospital and 30-day mortality have been used to evaluate pancreatectomy results. We posited that these measures could be compared using national data, providing more precision for evaluating published outcomes after pancreatectomy. METHODS: Patients undergoing resection for pancreatic cancer were identified from the linked SEER-Medicare databases (1991-2002). Mortality was analyzed and trend tests were utilized to evaluate risk of death within ≤60 days of resection and from 60 days to 2 years post-resection. Univariate analysis assessed patient characteristics such as race, gender, marital status, socioeconomic status, hospital teaching status, and complications. RESULTS: One thousand eight hundred forty-seven resected patients were identified: 7.7% (n = 142) died within the first 30 days, 83.6% of whom died during the same hospitalization. Postoperative in-hospital mortality was 8.1% (n = 150), 79% of which was within 30 days, greater than 90% of which was within 60 days. Risk of death decreased significantly over the first 60 days (P < 0.0001). After 60 days, the risk did not decrease through 2 years (P = 0.8533). Univariate analysis showed no difference between the two groups in terms of race, gender, marital status, and socioeconomic status, but patients dying within 60 days were more likely to have experienced a complication (41.1% vs. 17.0%, P < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: In-hospital and 30-day mortality after resection for cancer are similar nationally; thus, comparing mortality utilizing these measures is acceptable. After a 60-day post-resection window of increased mortality, mortality risk then continues at a constant rate over 2 years, suggesting that mortality after pancreatectomy is not limited to early ("complication") and late ("cancer") phases. Determining ways to decrease perioperative mortality in the 60-day interval will be critical to improving overall survival.

Complications after pancreatectomy for neuroendocrine tumors: a national study.

BACKGROUND: Although resection of pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (PNETs) has a demonstrated survival advantage, further evaluation of the overall morbidity of these procedures is needed. Our objective was to examine a composite outcome of major postoperative complications, including in-hospital mortality. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The Nationwide Inpatient Sample (NIS), 1998-2006, was used to identify all patients with a diagnosis of PNET who had undergone pancreatectomy. Candidate predictors consisted of patient and hospital characteristics. Univariate analyses included chi(2) tests. Multivariate analyses were performed with logistic regression to determine which predictors were independently associated with the composite outcome. RESULTS: A total of 463 (2274 nationally weighted) patients were identified. Overall composite postoperative complication rate was 29.6%. The majority of complications involved infections (11.1%), digestive complications (8.8%), or pulmonary compromise (7.3%). In-hospital mortality rate was 1.7%. High Charlson comorbidity score, procedure type of Whipple or total pancreatectomy, and urban hospital location were all associated with significantly increased complication rate. Logistic regression analysis demonstrated: Charlson score of > or =3 versus score of 0 (adjusted odds ratio (OR) 4.1, 95% confidence interval (CI) 2.1-8.3), surgery type of Whipple or total pancreatectomy versus partial pancreatectomy (adjusted OR 2.7, 95% CI 1.8-4.1), and hospital location of urban versus rural (adjusted OR 4.5, 95% CI 3.0-6.9). CONCLUSIONS: While in-hospital mortality rates are low for surgical resection of PNETs, there is a considerable overall postoperative complication rate associated with these procedures. Careful patient and surgery selection may be the key to a surgical treatment approach for PNETs that may optimize outcomes.

Racial differences in cancer specialist consultation, treatment, and outcomes for locoregional pancreatic adenocarcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Blacks have a higher incidence of pancreatic adenocarcinoma and worse outcomes compared to whites. Identifying barriers in pancreatic cancer care may explain survival differences and provide areas for intervention. METHODS: Pancreatic adenocarcinoma patients were identified in the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Registry (1991-2002). Treatment and outcome data were obtained from the linked Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Registry-Medicare databases. Logistic regression was used to assess race as a predictor of specialist consultation/receipt of therapy. Kaplan-Meier survival curves were compared. Cox proportional hazard analyses were performed to estimate survival after adjustment for patient and treatment characteristics. RESULTS: A total of 13,230 white patients (90%) and 1478 black patients (10%) were identified. Clinical/pathologic factors were compared by race. When we compared whites and blacks by univariate analyses, blacks had lower rates of specialist consultation (P<.01), chemotherapy (P<.01), and resection (P<.01). On multivariate analyses predicting consultation with a cancer specialist, black race negatively predicted consultation with a medical oncologist (adjusted odds ratio [AOR] .74, P<.01), radiation oncologist (AOR .75, P<.01), and surgeon (AOR .71, P<.01). For predicting receipt of therapy after consultation, blacks were less likely to undergo chemotherapy (AOR .59, P<.01) and resection (AOR .79, P=.05). Blacks had worse overall survival on Kaplan-Meier survival curves (log rank, P<.0001). On Cox proportional hazard modeling evaluating survival, black race was no longer independently associated with worse survival after adjustment for resection and adjuvant therapy (hazard ratio, 1.08; 95% confidence interval, .99-1.19). CONCLUSIONS: Racial disparities exist in pancreatic cancer specialist consultation and subsequent therapy use. Because receipt of care is fundamental to reducing outcome discrepancies, these barriers serve as discrete intervention points to ensure all locoregional pancreatic adenocarcinoma patients receive appropriate specialist referral and subsequent therapy.

National outcomes after gastric resection for neoplasm.

HYPOTHESIS: That factors affecting outcomes of surgical resection in the treatment of gastric cancer can be identified using a large US database. DESIGN: Retrospective observational study. SETTING: The Nationwide Inpatient Sample from January 1, 1998, through December 31, 2003. PATIENTS: We included 13 354 patient discharges (approximately 66 096 nationally by weighted analysis) who underwent gastric resection for neoplasm. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: In-hospital mortality. Univariate analyses were performed by means of chi(2) tests. A multivariate logistic regression was performed to determine which variables were independently predictive of in-hospital mortality. RESULTS: During the study period, 50 738 patients (approximately 250 420 nationally) were discharged with the diagnosis of gastric neoplasm. Of those, 13 354 (26.3%) underwent gastric resection during their hospitalization. In-hospital mortality for patients undergoing surgery was 6.0%, without significant change from 1998 through 2003. Factors predictive of significantly increased in-hospital mortality included low annual hospital surgical volume (lowest [or= 11 gastrectomies per year], 6.8% vs 4.9%; adjusted odds ratio [OR], 1.5; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.2-1.8]), older patient age (50-69 vs <50 years, 4.0% vs 2.1%; adjusted OR, 1.5; 95% CI, 1.1-2.2) (>or =70 vs <50 years, 8.6% vs 2.1%; adjusted OR, 2.9; 95% CI, 2.0-4.3), male sex (male vs female, 6.7% vs 5.0%; adjusted OR, 1.3; 95% CI, 1.1-1.5), and procedure type (total gastrectomy vs all other resections, 8.0% vs 5.3%; adjusted OR, 1.4; 95% CI, 1.2-1.7). CONCLUSIONS: Higher annual surgical volume is predictive of lower in-hospital mortality for patients undergoing gastric resection for neoplasm. Other factors significantly associated with superior outcomes after gastric resection included diagnosis type, procedure type, younger age, female sex, and fewer comorbid conditions.