Impact of the pandemic on surgical oncology in Piedmont, Italy: A retrospective observational study.

BACKGROUND AND METHODS: This retrospective observational study analyzes how the COVID-19 pandemic affected surgical oncology healthcare in a large sample from Piedmont, Northern Italy. Patients admitted for regular hospitalization were included (n = 99 651). Data from 2020 were compared to the averages from 2016 to 2019, stratified by tumor site, year, month, and admission method, using interrupted time series analysis post-March 2020. RESULTS: In 2020, oncological surgeries decreased by 12.3% (n = 17 923) compared to the 2016-2019 average (n = 20 432), notably dropping post-March (incidence rate ratio = 0.858; p < 0.001). The greatest reduction was observed for breast (-19.2%), colon (-18.2%), bladder (-17.5%), kidney (-14.2%), and prostate (-14%) surgeries. There was a huge reduction in nonemergency admissions (-13.6%), especially for colon (-23.8%), breast (-19.4%), and bladder (-18.7%). The proportion of hospitalizations with emergency access increased (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The COVID-19 pandemic led to a significant decrease in cancer surgeries in Piedmont in 2020, with an increase in the proportion of admissions through emergency access. DISCUSSION: The research provides valuable insights for comparing data with other regions and evaluating the effectiveness of efforts to recover lost surgical procedures. These findings can be useful to policymakers in developing coordinated measures and more efficient access strategies to healthcare services in any future emergency situations.

Geographic Disparities in Potential Accessibility to Gynecologic Oncologists in the United States From 2001 to 2020.

OBJECTIVE: To use a spatial modeling approach to capture potential disparities of gynecologic oncologist accessibility in the United States at the county level between 2001 and 2020. METHODS: Physician registries identified the 2001-2020 gynecologic oncology workforce and were aggregated to each county. The at-risk cohort (women aged 18 years or older) was stratified by race and ethnicity and rurality demographics. We computed the distance from at-risk women to physicians. Relative access scores were computed by a spatial model for each contiguous county. Access scores were compared across urban or rural status and racial and ethnic groups. RESULTS: Between 2001 and 2020, the gynecologic oncologist workforce increased. By 2020, there were 1,178 active physicians and 98.3% practiced in urban areas (37.3% of all counties). Geographic disparities were identified, with 1.09 physicians per 100,000 women in urban areas compared with 0.1 physicians per 100,000 women in rural areas. In total, 2,862 counties (57.4 million at-risk women) lacked an active physician. Additionally, there was no increase in rural physicians, with only 1.7% practicing in rural areas in 2016-2020 relative to 2.2% in 2001-2005 ( P =.35). Women in racial and ethnic minority populations, such as American Indian or Alaska Native and Hispanic women, exhibited the lowest level of access to physicians across all time periods. For example, 23.7% of American Indian or Alaska Native women did not have access to a physician within 100 miles between 2016 and 2020, which did not improve over time. Non-Hispanic Black women experienced an increase in relative accessibility, with a 26.2% increase by 2016-2020. However, Asian or Pacific Islander women exhibited significantly better access than non-Hispanic White, non-Hispanic Black, Hispanic, and American Indian or Alaska Native women across all time periods. CONCLUSION: Although the U.S. gynecologic oncologist workforce increased steadily over 20 years, this has not translated into evidence of improved access for many women from rural and underrepresented areas. However, health care utilization and cancer outcomes may not be influenced only by distance and availability. Policies and pipeline programs are needed to address these inequities in gynecologic cancer care.

Impact of the Novel Coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) Pandemic on Head and Neck Cancer Care.

OBJECTIVE: The study aimed to assess the impact of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic on head and neck oncologic care at a tertiary care facility. STUDY DESIGN: This was a cross-sectional study conducted between March 18, 2020, and May 20, 2020. The primary planned outcome was the rate of treatment modifications during the study period. Secondary outcome measures were tumor conference volume, operative volume, and outpatient patient procedure and clinic volumes. SETTING: This single-center study was conducted at a tertiary care academic hospital in a large metropolitan area. METHODS: The study included a consecutive sample of adult subjects who were presented at a head and neck interdepartmental tumor conference during the study period. Patients were compared to historical controls based on review of operative data, outpatient procedures, and clinic volumes. RESULTS: In total, 117 patients were presented during the review period in 2020, compared to 69 in 2019. There was an 8.4% treatment modification rate among cases presented at the tumor conference. There was a 61.3% (347 from 898) reduction in outpatient clinic visits and a 63.4% (84 from 230) reduction in procedural volume compared to the prior year. Similarly, the operative volume decreased by 27.0% (224 from 307) compared to the previous year. CONCLUSION: Restrictions related to the COVID-19 pandemic resulted in limited treatment modifications. Transition to virtual tumor board format observed an increase in case presentations. While there were reductions in operative volume, there was a larger proportion of surgical cases for malignancy, reflecting the prioritization of oncologic care during the pandemic.

High-Intensity vs Low-Intensity Knowledge Translation Interventions for Surgeons and Their Association With Process and Outcome Measures Among Patients Undergoing Rectal Cancer Surgery.

Importance: Surgeon-directed knowledge translation (KT) interventions for rectal cancer surgery are designed to improve patient measures, such as rates of permanent colostomy and in-hospital mortality, and to improve survival. Objective: To evaluate the association of sustained, iterative, integrated KT rectal cancer surgery interventions directed at all surgeons with process and outcome measures among patients undergoing rectal cancer surgery in a geographic region. Design, Setting, and Participants: This quality improvement study used administrative data from patients who underwent rectal cancer surgery from April 1, 2004, to March 31, 2015, in 14 health regions in Ontario, Canada. Follow-up was completed on March 31, 2020. Exposures: Surgeons in 2 regions were offered intensive KT interventions, including annual workshops, audit and feedback sessions, and, in 1 of the 2 regions, operative demonstrations, from 2006 to 2012 (high-intensity KT group). Surgeons in the remaining 12 regions did not receive these interventions (low-intensity KT group). Main Outcomes and Measures: Among patients undergoing rectal cancer surgery, proportions of preoperative pelvic magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), preoperative radiotherapy, and type of surgery were evaluated, as were in-hospital mortality and overall survival. Logistic regression models with an interaction term between group and year were used to assess whether process measures and in-hospital mortality differed between groups over time. Results: A total of 15 683 patients were included in the analysis (10 052 [64.1%] male; mean [SD] age, 65.9 [12.1] years), of whom 3762 (24.0%) were in the high-intensity group (2459 [65.4%] male; mean [SD] age, 66.4 [12.0] years) and 11 921 (76.0%) were in the low-intensity KT group (7593 [63.7%] male; mean [SD] age, 65.7 [12.1] years). A total of 1624 patients (43.2%) in the high-intensity group and 4774 (40.0%) in the low-intensity KT group underwent preoperative MRI (P < .001); 1321 (35.1%) and 4424 (37.1%), respectively, received preoperative radiotherapy (P = .03); and 967 (25.7%) and 2365 (19.8%), respectively, received permanent stoma (P < .001). In-hospital mortality was 1.6% (59 deaths) in the high-intensity KT group and 2.2% (258 deaths) in the low-intensity KT group (P = .02). Differences remained significant in multivariable models only for permanent stoma (odds ratio [OR], 1.67; 95% CI, 1.24-2.24; P < .001) and in-hospital mortality (OR, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.51-0.87; P = .003). In both groups over time, significant increases in the proportion of patients undergoing preoperative MRI (from 6.3% to 67.1%) and preoperative radiotherapy (from 16.5% to 44.7%) occurred, but there were no significant changes for permanent stoma (25.4% to 25.3% in the high-intensity group and 20.0% to 18.3% in the low-intensity group) and in-hospital mortality (0.8% to 0.8% in the high-intensity group and 2.2% to 1.8% in the low-intensity group). Time trends were similar between groups for measures that did or did not change over time. Patient overall survival was similar between groups (hazard ratio, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.90-1.11; P = .99). Conclusions and Relevance: In this quality improvement study, between-group differences were found in only 2 measures (permanent stoma and in-hospital mortality), but these differences were stable over time. High-intensity KT group interventions were not associated with improved patient measures and outcomes. Proper evaluation of KT or quality improvement interventions may help avoid opportunity costs associated with ineffective strategies.

Predicting need for hospital-specific interventional care after surgery using electronic health record data.

BACKGROUND: A significant proportion of surgical inpatients is often admitted longer than necessary. Early identification of patients who do not need care that is strictly provided within hospitals would allow timely discharge of patients to a postoperative nursing home for further recovery. We aimed to develop a model to predict whether a patient needs hospital-specific interventional care beyond the second postoperative day. METHODS: This study included all adult patients discharged from surgical care in the surgical oncology department from June 2017 to February 2020. The primary outcome was to predict whether a patient still needs hospital-specific interventional care beyond the second postoperative day. Hospital-specific care was defined as unplanned reoperations, radiological interventions, and intravenous antibiotics administration. Different analytical methods were compared with respect to the area under the receiver-operating characteristics curve, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value. RESULTS: Each model was trained on 1,174 episodes. In total, 847 (50.5%) patients required an intervention during postoperative admission. A random forest model performed best with an area under the receiver-operating characteristics curve of 0.88 (95% confidence interval 0.83-0.93), sensitivity of 79.1% (95% confidence interval 0.67-0.92), specificity of 80.0% (0.73-0.87), positive predictive value of 57.6% (0.45-0.70) and negative predictive value of 91.7% (0.87-0.97). CONCLUSION: This proof-of-concept study found that a random forest model could successfully predict whether a patient could be safely discharged to a nursing home and does not need hospital care anymore. Such a model could aid hospitals in addressing capacity challenges and improve patient flow, allowing for timely surgical care.

Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Surgical Oncology in Europe: Results of a European Survey.

BACKGROUND: The first COVID-19 pandemic wave hit most of the health-care systems worldwide. The present survey aimed to provide a European overview on the COVID-19 impact on surgical oncology. METHODS: This anonymous online survey was accessible from April 24 to May 11, 2020, for surgeons (n = 298) who were contacted by the surgical society European Digestive Surgery. The survey was completed by 88 surgeons (29.2%) from 69 different departments. The responses per department were evaluated. RESULTS: Of the departments, 88.4% (n = 61/69) reported a lower volume of patients in the outpatient clinic; 69.1% (n = 47/68) and 75.0% (n = 51/68) reported a reduction in hospital bed and the operating room capacity, respectively. As a result, the participants reported an average reduction of 29.3% for all types of oncological resections surveyed in this questionnaire. The strongest reduction was observed for oncological resections of hepato-pancreatico-biliary (HPB) cancers. Of the interviewed surgeons, 68.7% (n = 46/67) agreed that survival outcomes will be negatively impacted by the pandemic. CONCLUSION: The first COVID-19 pandemic wave had a significant impact on surgical oncology in Europe. The surveyed surgeons expect an increase in the number of unresectable cancers as well as poorer survival outcomes due to cancellations of follow-ups and postponements of surgeries.

Patterns and characteristics of patients' selection of cancer surgeons.

OBJECTIVE: Despite evidence of volume-outcome relationships for cancer surgery, treatment at low-volume hospitals remains common. Our objective was to evaluate whether individuals actively involved in selecting their cancer surgeon were more likely to go to hospitals recognized for quality cancer care. METHODS: Individuals diagnosed with breast, prostate and colorectal cancer in 2015 completed online surveys in 2017-2018. Participants were categorized as "directed" to a surgeon (relied on referral) or "active" (sought additional information), and hospitals were categorized by NCI-designation, CoC accreditation, and academic affiliation. RESULTS: Of 299 participants, 42% were active. Individuals with breast cancer were more active (aOR = 2.46,95%CI:1.32-4.59). Active participants had nonsignificantly higher odds of surgery at NCI-designated facilities (aOR = 2.04,95%CI:0.95-4.38), or academic centers (aOR = 1.51,95%CI:0.86-2.64). CONCLUSIONS: While most participants were directed to their cancer surgeon, active participants tended to select NCI-designated/academic hospitals. Although centralization of cancer care would require altering referral patterns, decision-support resources may help patients make informed choices.

Employment and Migration Patterns of Recent Micrographic Surgery and Dermatologic Oncology Fellowship Graduates.

BACKGROUND: There is currently an uneven distribution of the Mohs surgery workforce, with a dearth in nonurban areas. The relationship between training and employment locations of Mohs surgeons has not been studied. OBJECTIVE: To analyze the employment location of recent micrographic surgery and dermatologic oncology (MSDO) graduates in reference to residency and fellowship locations. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Data collection of training and practice locations of 421 MSDO fellowship graduates from 2012 to 2017. RESULTS: Thirty-two percent (n = 136) and 53% (n = 225) of MSDO fellowship graduates' first employment locations were located within 10 and 100 miles of either their residency or fellowship locations. Ninety-six percent of graduates were employed in a metropolitan location. Female graduates worked closer to training sites than male graduates, with 62% (n = 124) versus 46% (n = 102) working within 100 miles of either training site. Analysis by fellowship census region showed that graduates clustered around training sites in all regions, with 45% to 60% of graduates working within 100 miles of either training site. CONCLUSION: The majority of graduates chose to work in a metropolitan area. Training location strongly predicts employment location. More than 45% of graduates in any region worked within 100 miles of their residency or fellowship site, and a sizeable portion worked within 10 miles.

Assessing the immediate impact of COVID-19 on surgical oncology practice: Experience from an NCI-designated Comprehensive Cancer Center in the Northeastern United States.

BACKGROUND: The effects of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic on surgical oncology practice are not yet quantified. The aim of this study was to measure the immediate impact of COVID-19 on surgical oncology practice volume. METHODS: A retrospective study of patients treated at an NCI-Comprehensive Cancer Center was performed. "Pre-COVID" era was defined as January-February 2020 and "COVID" as March-April 2020. Primary outcomes were clinic visits and operative volume by surgical oncology subspecialty. RESULTS: Abouyt 907 new patient visits, 3897 follow-up visits, and 644 operations occurred during the study period. All subspecialties experienced significant decreases in new patient visits during COVID, though soft tissue oncology (Mel/Sarc), gynecologic oncology (Gyn/Onc), and endocrine were disproportionately affected. Telehealth visits increased to 11.4% of all visits by April. Mel/Sarc, Gyn/Onc, and Breast experienced significant operative volume decreases during COVID (25.8%, p = 0.012, 43.6% p < 0.001, and 41.9%, p < 0.001, respectively), while endocrine had no change and gastrointestinal oncology had a slight increase (p = 0.823) in the number of cases performed. CONCLUSIONS: The effects of the COVID-19 pandemic are wide-ranging within surgical oncology subspecialties. The addition of telehealth is a viable avenue for cancer patient care and should be considered in surgical oncology practice.

Evaluation of uro-oncological surgical treatment during the Sars-CoV-2 pandemic in a Brazilian tertiary oncology institution, the new world epicenter

ABSTRACT Introduction: The rapid spread of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has dramatic effects on individuals and health care systems. In our institute, a tertiary oncologic public hospital with high surgical volume, we prioritize maintaining cancer treatment as well as possible. The aim of this study is to evaluate if uro-oncological surgeries at pandemic are safe. Materials and Methods: We evaluated patients who underwent uro-oncological procedures. Epidemiological data, information on COVID-19 infection related to surgery and clinical characteristics of non-survival operative patients with COVID-19 infections were analyzed. Results: From 213 patients analyzed, Covid-19 symptoms were noticed in 8 patients at preoperative process or at hospital admission postponing operation; 161 patients were submitted to elective surgery and 44 to emergency surgery. From patients submitted to elective surgeries, we had 1 patient with laboratory confirmation of COVID-19 (0,6%), with mild symptoms and quick discharge. From the urgencies group, we had 6(13%) patients tested positive; 5 were taken to ICU with 4 deaths. Conclusion: Elective uro-oncological procedures at the COVID-19 epidemic period in a COVID-19-free Institute are safe, and patients who need urgent procedures, with a long period of hospitalization, need special care to avoid COVID-19 infection and its outcomes.

Continuing cancer surgery through the first six months of the COVID-19 pandemic at an academic university hospital in India: A lower-middle-income country experience.

BACKGROUND: The novel coronavirus pandemic (COVID-19) hinders the treatment of non-COVID illnesses like cancer, which may be pronounced in lower-middle-income countries. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study audited the performance of a tertiary care surgical oncology department at an academic hospital in India during the first six months of the pandemic. Difficulties faced by patients, COVID-19-related incidents (preventable cases of hospital transmission), and modifications in practice were recorded. RESULTS: From April to September 2020, outpatient consultations, inpatient admissions, and chemotherapy unit functioning reduced by 62%, 58%, and 56%, respectively, compared to the same period the previous year. Major surgeries dropped by 31% with a decrease across all sites, but an increase in head and neck cancers (p = .012, absolute difference 8%, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.75% - 14.12%). Postoperative complications were similar (p = .593, 95% CI: -2.61% - 4.87%). Inability to keep a surgical appointment was primarily due to apprehension of infection (52%) or arranging finances (49%). Two COVID-19-related incidents resulted in infecting 27 persons. Fifteen instances of possible COVID-19-related mishaps were averted. CONCLUSIONS: We observed a decrease in the operations of the department without any adverse impact in postoperative outcomes. While challenging, treating cancer adequately during COVID-19 can be accomplished by adequate screening and testing, and religiously following the prevention guidelines.

Evaluation of uro-oncological surgical treatment during the Sars-CoV-2 pandemic in a Brazilian tertiary oncology institution, the new world epicenter.

INTRODUCTION: The rapid spread of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has dramatic effects on individuals and health care systems. In our institute, a tertiary oncologic public hospital with high surgical volume, we prioritize maintaining cancer treatment as well as possible. The aim of this study is to evaluate if uro-oncological surgeries at pandemic are safe. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We evaluated patients who underwent uro-oncological procedures. Epidemiological data, information on COVID-19 infection related to surgery and clinical characteristics of non-survival operative patients with COVID-19 infections were analyzed. RESULTS: From 213 patients analyzed, Covid-19 symptoms were noticed in 8 patients at preoperative process or at hospital admission postponing operation; 161 patients were submitted to elective surgery and 44 to emergency surgery. From patients submitted to elective surgeries, we had 1 patient with laboratory confirmation of COVID-19 (0,6%), with mild symptoms and quick discharge. From the urgencies group, we had 6(13%)patients tested positive; 5 were taken to ICU with 4 deaths. CONCLUSION: Elective uro-oncological procedures at the COVID-19 epidemic period in a COVID-19-free Institute are safe, and patients who need urgent procedures, with a long period of hospitalization, need special care to avoid COVID-19 infection and its outcomes.

Timing of diagnosis of complex lower urinary tract injury in the 30-day postoperative period following benign hysterectomy.

BACKGROUND: Complex lower urinary tract injury resulting from hysterectomy is a rare but highly morbid complication. Although intraoperative recognition reduces the risk of serious sequelae, observational studies have shown that most complex lower urinary tract injuries are recognized in the postoperative period. To date, limited research exists describing the timing of diagnosis of complex lower urinary tract injury or risk factors associated with complex lower urinary tract injury diagnosed in the postoperative period. OBJECTIVE: This analysis aimed to describe the time to diagnosis of complex lower urinary tract injury among women undergoing benign hysterectomy. We also aimed to identify the intraoperative risk factors for differences in type and timing of complex lower urinary tract injury in the 30-day postoperative period using a large prospective national surgical database. STUDY DESIGN: This was a retrospective analysis using the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program hysterectomy data set from 2014 to 2018. All benign hysterectomies were included. Sociodemographic factors, health status, surgeon type, and other operative characteristics were extracted. A complex lower urinary tract injury was defined as at least 1 ureteral obstruction, ureteral fistula, or bladder fistula diagnosed within the first 30 days following surgery. Bivariate and multivariate logistic regression and cox proportional hazards assessed differences in odds of and time until diagnosis of complex lower urinary tract injury. Proportional hazard assumptions were evaluated with martingale residuals and supremum tests. Significance thresholds were 0.05 for all analyses. RESULTS: In this study, 100,823 women met the inclusion criteria. Median time to diagnosis of complex lower urinary tract injury was 10 days (interquartile range, 3-19) and varied significantly based on type of injury (P<.01) with ureteral obstruction (6; interquartile range, 2-16) recognized earlier than ureteral fistula (12; interquartile range, 7-21) and bladder fistula (14; interquartile range, 4-23). In addition, 8.65% of complex lower urinary tract injury were diagnosed on the day of surgery. Total laparoscopic hysterectomy had the lowest rate of complex lower urinary tract injury in unadjusted and adjusted analysis, with abdominal hysterectomy (adjusted odds ratio, 2.02; 95% confidence interval, 1.21-3.36) and vaginal hysterectomy (adjusted odds ratio, 2.05; 95% confidence interval, 1.16-3.62) having greater odds of ureteral obstruction, whereas laparoscopic assisted vaginal hysterectomy had the greatest odds of fistula (adjusted odds ratio, 2.10; 95% confidence interval, 1.26-3.48). Concomitant apical suspension was associated with a 6-day reduction in median time to diagnosis (P=.01), and surgery with a gynecologic oncologist was associated with a 9.5-day increase in median time to diagnosis (P=.01). Cox proportional hazards analysis confirmed these findings when controlling for confounders. CONCLUSION: Greater than 91% of complex lower urinary tract injury diagnoses in the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program hysterectomy database were diagnosed after the day of surgery. Route of hysterectomy, concomitant apical suspension, and primary surgeon specialty are associated with differences in both type of injury and time until diagnosis. These intraoperative risk factors should be considered when assessing for complex lower urinary tract injury in the 30-day postoperative period.

Preparedness of the cancer hospitals and changes in oncosurgical practices during COVID-19 pandemic in India: A cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has impacted cancer care across India. This study aimed to assess (a) organizational preparedness of hospitals (establishment of screening clinics, COVID-19 wards/committees/intensive care units [ICUs]/operating rooms [ORs]), (b) type of major/minor surgeries performed, and (c) employee well-being (determined by salary deductions, paid leave provisions, and work in-rotation). METHODS: This online questionnaire-based cross-sectional study was distributed to 480 oncosurgeons across India. We used χ2 statistics to compare responses across geographical areas (COVID-19 lockdown zones and city tiers) and type of organization (government/private, academic/nonacademic, and dedicated/multispecialty hospitals). P < .05 was considered significant. RESULTS: Total of 256 (53.3%) oncologists completed the survey. About 206 hospitals in 85 cities had screening clinics (98.1%), COVID-19 dedicated committees (73.7%), ward (67.3%), ICU's (49%), and OR's (36%). Such preparedness was higher in tier-1 cities, government, academic, and multispecialty hospitals. Dedicated cancer institutes continued major surgeries in all oncological subspecialties particularly in head and neck (P = .006) and colorectal oncology (P = .04). Employee well-being was better in government hospitals. CONCLUSION: Hospitals have implemented strategies to continue cancer care. Despite limited resources, the significant risk associated and financial setbacks amidst nationwide lockdown, oncosurgeons are striving to prioritize and balance the oncologic needs and safety concerns of cancer patients across the country.

Impact of the pandemic on cancer care: Lessons learnt from a rural cancer center in the first 3 months.

INTRODUCTION: The COVID-19 outbreak and the subsequent declaration of pandemic was an unprecedented event, which created different complex situations for treatment of cancer patients. A critical assessment of the response to this calamity and its impact on healthcare workers (HCWs) and patient care in a dedicated cancer hospital is analyzed. SITE OF STUDY: Indrayani Cancer Hospital, Alandi, Pune, India. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Due to the pandemic, standard operating protocols were decided on for each department. Analysis of the impact on healthcare was done by comparing the number of patients taking treatment in the lockdown period in India with the previous year's data in the same corresponding period in all three departments. The impact of COVID infection on the HCW and its repercussions were analyzed. RESULTS: There was a marked decrease in the total number of patients during the lockdown period. The most affected department was surgical oncology. None of our patients contracted COVID-19, but one HCW was found to be positive. CONCLUSION: Strict adherence to protocols along with the support of the government authorities can prevent the spread of this virus thus providing optimal patient outcomes. The treatment of patients with cancer should not be delayed, even in times of a pandemic.

Volume Pledge is Not Associated with Better Short-Term Outcomes After Lung Cancer Resection.

PURPOSE: We examined the relationship between short-term outcomes and hospitals and surgeons who met minimum volume thresholds for lung cancer resection based on definitions provided by the Volume Pledge. A secondary aim was to evaluate the volume-outcome relationship to determine alternative thresholds in the event the Volume Pledge was not associated with outcomes. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We conducted a retrospective study (2015-2017) using the Society of Thoracic Surgeons General Thoracic Surgery Database. We used generalized estimating equations that accounted for confounding and clustering to compare outcomes across hospitals and surgeons who did and did not meet the Volume Pledge criteria: ≥ 40 patients per year for hospitals and ≥ 20 patients per year for surgeons. Our secondary aim was to model volume by using restricted cubic splines to determine the association between volume and short-term outcomes. RESULTS: Among 32,183 patients, 465 surgeons, and 209 hospitals, 16,630 patients (52%) received care from both a hospital and surgeon meeting the Volume Pledge criteria. After adjustment, there was no relationship with operative mortality, complications, major morbidity, a major morbidity-mortality composite end point, or failure to rescue. The Volume Pledge group had a 0.5 day (95% CI, 0.2 to 0.7 day) shorter length of stay. Our secondary aim revealed a nonlinear relationship between hospital volume and complications in which intermediate-volume hospitals had the highest risk of complications. Surgeon volume was associated with major morbidity, a major morbidity-mortality composite end point, and length of stay in an inverse linear fashion. Only 8% of surgeons had volumes associated with better outcomes. CONCLUSION: The Volume Pledge was not associated with better outcomes except for a marginally shorter length of stay. A re-examination of volume-outcome relationships for hospitals and surgeons yielded mixed results that did not reveal a practical alternative for volume-based quality improvement efforts.