Hospital volume and surgical outcomes for elderly patients with colorectal cancer in the United States. The influence of hospital and surgeon volume on in-hospital mortality for colectomy, gastrectomy, and lung lobectomy in patients with cancer. Association of hospital procedure volume and outcomes in patients with colon cancer at high risk for recurrence. Impact of surgeon volume and specialization on short-term outcomes in colorectal cancer surgery. Lothian and Borders large bowel cancer project: immediate outcome after surgery. The consultant surgeons and pathologists of the Lothian and Borders Health Boards. Subspecialisation and its effect on the management of rectal cancer. Hospital volume and inpatient mortality after cancer-related gastrointestinal resections: the experience of an Asian country. Surgeon volume does not predict outcomes in the setting of technical credentialing: results from a randomized trial in colon cancer. Surgical volume and long-term survival following surgery for colorectal cancer in the Veterans Affairs Health-Care System. Hospital volume can serve as a surrogate for surgeon volume for achieving excellent outcomes in colorectal resection. Colon cancer management and outcome in relation to individual hospitals in a defined population. Does it matter what a hospital is "high volume" for? Specificity of hospital volume-outcome associations for surgical procedures: analysis of administrative data. Volume-outcome analysis of colorectal cancer-related outcomes. Hospital procedure volume and teaching status do not influence treatment and outcome measures of rectal cancer surgery in a large general population. Influence of hospital volume on the frequency of abdominoperineal resection and long-term oncological outcomes in low rectal cancer. Actionable indicators for short and long term outcomes in rectal cancer. Elective resection of colon cancer by high-volume surgeons is associated with decreased morbidity and mortality. Effect of hospital caseload on long-term outcome after standardization of rectal cancer surgery at a national level. Influence of volume of work on the outcome of treatment for patients with colorectal cancer. Variability in the quality of rectal cancer care in public hospitals in Catalonia (Spain): clinical audit as a basis for action. Population-based audit of colorectal cancer management in two UK health regions. Colorectal Cancer Working Group, Royal College of Surgeons of England Clinical Epidemiology and Audit Unit. Surgeon and hospital volume and the management of colorectal cancer patients in Australia. Hospital volume and surgical mortality in the United States. The rate of abdominoperineal resections for rectal cancer in the state of Victoria, Australia: a population-based study. Impact of hospital case volume on the quality of laparoscopic colectomy in Japan. Effect of surgeon specialty interest on patient outcome after potentially curative colorectal cancer surgery. Influence of volume and specialization on survival following surgery for colorectal cancer. Hospital and surgeon procedure volume as predictors of outcome following rectal cancer resection. Surgeon volume compared to hospital volume as a predictor of outcome following primary colon cancer resection. Hospital volume and outcome of rectal cancer surgery in Denmark 1994-99. The surgeon as a prognostic factor after the introduction of total mesorectal excision in the treatment of rectal cancer. The impact of hospital volume on surgical outcome in patients with rectal cancer. Relationship between surgeon caseload and sphincter preservation in patients with rectal cancer. Effect of caseload on the short-term outcome of colon surgery: results of a multicenter study. Curative rectal cancer surgery in a low-volume hospital: a quality assessment. Hospital caseload and the results achieved in patients with rectal cancer. Variation in treatment and outcome of patients with rectal cancer by region, hospital type and volume in the Netherlands. Impact of hospital case volume on short-term outcome after laparoscopic operation for colonic cancer. Relation of hospital volume to colostomy rates and survival for patients with rectal cancer. Evidence of the effect of 'specialization' on the management, surgical outcome and survival from colorectal cancer in Wessex. Disparities in quality of care for colon cancer between hospitals in the Netherlands. Surgeon and hospital characteristics as predictors of major adverse outcomes following colon cancer surgery: understanding the volume-outcome relationship. Surgical volume influences survival in patients undergoing resections for stage II colon cancers. Influence of hospital volume on local recurrence and survival in a population sample of rectal cancer patients. Operative mortality after colorectal resection in the Netherlands. Relation of surgeon and hospital volume to processes and outcomes of colorectal cancer surgery.
Recent emphasis has been placed on the quality of surgical care in the United States. As such, patients, providers, and payers are increasingly aware of the outcomes of surgical care as a marker of quality. The objective of this study was to determine the impact of hospital volume on mortality for patients of different age groups to determine whether elderly patients would derive more benefit from selective referral policies.
                Data from the Nationwide Inpatient Sample for all patients undergoing surgery for colorectal cancer during 1997 were obtained (N = 20,862). Differences in mortality associated with increasing age and hospital volume quartiles were determined. Risk-adjusted analyses of mortality were performed using multiple logistic regression.
                The overall mortality rate was 3.1% for the 842 hospitals included. Patient age breakdown was the following: age <50, 7%; age 50 to 64, 19%; age 65 to 80, 51%; and age >80, 22%. Increasing age was associated with higher mortality rates: age <50, 0.8%; age 51 to 65, 1.3%; age 66 to 80, 2.9%; and >80, 6.9%. Overall, the highest volume hospitals (HVH) (>150/year) had lower mortality than the lowest volume hospitals (LVH) (<55/year) (2.5% vs. 3.7%; P = 0.006). However, the effect of volume on mortality was primarily due to differences in older patients. For patients greater than 65 years old, the mortality rate was 3.1% at HVH and 4.5% at LVH (P = 0.03). For patients greater than 80 years old, the mortality rate was 4.6% at HVH and 7.3% at LVH (P = 0.04). The results were unchanged after adjustment for patient demographics, comorbid disease, site of cancer, and type of resection.
                The majority of deaths after surgery for colorectal cancer occur in older patients. Hospitals that perform higher volumes of colorectal resection have lower mortality rates, especially for older patients. In the absence of other information about the quality of surgical care, provider volumes are a useful marker of postoperative outcomes for older patients in need of surgery for colorectal cancer. This study explores the volume-mortality relationship for 3 groups of cancer procedures to determine whether higher-volume hospitals, higher-volume surgeons, or both are associated with lower in-hospital mortality.
                New York's Statewide Planning and Research Cooperative System was used to identify more than 32,000 hospital inpatients with a cancer diagnosis who underwent colectomy, lobectomy of the lung, or gastrectomy between January 1, 1994, and December 31, 1997. The association of in-hospital mortality rates with provider (hospital and surgeon) volume was examined after adjusting for differences in age, demographics, organ metastasis, socioeconomic status, and comorbidities.
                For hospital volume for gastrectomy, the highest-volume quartile had an absolute risk-adjusted mortality rate that was 7.1% lower (P <.0001) than the lowest-volume quartile, although the overall mortality rate for the procedure was only 6.2%. For surgeon volume for colectomy, the highest- and lowest- volume quartiles differed by 1.9% (P <.0001), although the procedure mortality rate was only 3.5%. For hospital volume for lung lobectomy, the absolute difference in mortality was 1.7%. Patients undergoing operations performed by high-volume surgeons in high-volume hospitals usually had significantly lower risk-adjusted mortality rates than did patients who had low-volume surgeons or who were in low-volume hospitals, or both.
                For all 3 procedure groups, the risk-adjusted in-hospital mortality is significantly lower when the procedures are performed by high-volume providers. Studies that use registry data have demonstrated superior long-term overall survival after curative surgical resection of colon cancer at hospitals where the volume of such surgeries is high. However, because such administrative data lack information on cancer recurrence, the true nature of this relation remains uncertain.
                To determine whether hospital procedure volume predicts long-term outcomes of colon cancer surgery.
                Nested cohort study within a randomized clinical trial.
                Intergroup 0089 national adjuvant colon cancer study conducted between 1988 and 1992.
                3161 patients with high-risk stage II and stage III colon cancer.
                Overall survival and recurrence-free survival, by hospital procedure volume as defined by Medicare claims data.
                With a median follow-up of 9.4 years, 5-year overall survival significantly differed across tertiles of hospital procedure volume (63.8% for patients who had resection at low-volume hospitals compared with 67.3% at high-volume hospitals; P = 0.04). After adjustment for other predictors of colon cancer outcome, the hazard ratio for overall mortality in patients treated at low-volume centers was 1.16 (95% CI, 1.03 to 1.32). However, the risk for cancer recurrence was not associated with hospital procedure volume. Five-year recurrence-free survival was 63.9% for patients who had resection at low-volume hospitals compared with 63.0% at high-volume hospitals (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.03 [CI, 0.89 to 1.18]). These findings did not materially change after stratification by other potential demographic and clinical predictors of outcome.
                According to prospectively recorded data from a large clinical trial, patients whose colon cancer was resected at low-volume hospitals experienced a higher risk for long-term mortality; however, this increased mortality was not attributable to differences in colon cancer recurrences. Several studies have shown a relationship between surgeon volume and outcomes in colorectal cancer surgery. The aim of this study was to determine the impact of surgeon volume and specialization on primary tumour resection rate, restoration of bowel continuity following rectal cancer resection, anastomotic leakage and perioperative mortality.
                The Northern Region Colorectal Cancer Audit Group conducts a population-based audit of patients with colorectal cancer managed by surgeons. This study examined 8219 patients treated between 1998 and 2002. Outcomes were modelled using multivariate logistic regression analysis.
                Tumour resection was performed in 6949 (93.8 per cent) of 7411 patients. High-volume surgeons with an annual caseload of at least 18.5 (odds ratio (OR) 1.53 (95 per cent confidence interval (c.i.) 1.10 to 2.12); P = 0.012) and colorectal specialists (OR 1.42 (95 per cent c.i. 1.06 to 1.90); P = 0.018) were more likely to perform elective sphincter-saving rectal surgery. In elective surgery, the risk of perioperative death was lower for high-volume surgeons (OR 0.58 (95 per cent c.i. 0.44 to 0.76); P < 0.001), but this was not the case in emergency surgery.
                High-volume surgeons had lower perioperative mortality rates for elective surgery, and were more likely to use restorative rectal procedures.
                Copyright (c) 2007 British Journal of Surgery Society Ltd. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. A prospective audit of all large bowel cancer resections is being conducted in the adjacent Health Boards of Lothian and Borders. The results of surgery in 750 consecutive patients recruited during the first 2 years are presented. In this time, 249 (33.2 per cent) patients presented as an emergency, 490 (65.3 per cent) had resection of a colonic cancer, and 36 (4.8 per cent) patients died within 30 days. Abdominal resection was performed in 741 patients and intestinal continuity was restored in 646 (87.2 per cent). Of all anastomoses performed, 31 (4.8 per cent) leaked (15 of 467 (3.2 per cent) and 16 of 179 (8.9 per cent) after resection of colonic and rectal cancers, respectively). Of the patients presenting with a rectal cancer, 251 (96.5 per cent) underwent abdominal resection and intestinal continuity was restored in 179 (71.3 per cent). Five of 28 consultants were responsible for half of these patients. Patients treated by these five consultants were no more likely to undergo anastomosis, but when an anastomosis was performed it was less likely to leak (four of 95 (4.2 per cent) versus 12 of 84 (14.3 per cent) (chi 2 = 4.63, P < 0.05)). The overall outcome of surgery appears to be improved when compared to previous similar audits. Considerable intersurgeon variation remains in the results of resection of rectal cancer. To assess the impact of subspecialisation on surgical and oncological outcomes after rectal cancer surgery in a single surgical unit within a district general hospital.
                A total of 207 patients with rectal cancer treated surgically by two colorectal surgeons and four experienced general surgeons at the Royal Berkshire Hospital, Reading, England between January 1995 and December 1999 were studied. A retrospective case-note review of each patient's personal details, operative and histological findings, their subsequent clinical progress and oncological outcomes, including 5-year survival were recorded.
                In the study group, 127 patients were treated by a colorectal surgeon and 80 by general surgeons. Pre-operative radiotherapy was more likely to be given to patients treated by a colorectal surgeon. Fewer permanent stomas were performed by colorectal surgeons. Postoperative morbidity, transfusion requirements, anastomotic leak rates and 30-day mortality were not significantly different. Tumour-involved circumferential resection margins, local recurrence rates and risk of distant metastases were similar between the two groups of surgeons.
                Colorectal subspecialisation has resulted in an increased use of pre-operative radiotherapy and fewer permanent stomas. No significant improvement in surgical or oncological outcomes after rectal cancer surgery have been observed. Using 4-year nationwide population-based data for Taiwan, this study compared in-hospital surgical mortality rates with hospital volume for five cancer-related gastrointestinal resections.
                The study sample was drawn from the Taiwan National Health Insurance Research Database. A total of 34,715 patients, each of whom had undergone a cancer-related colectomy, gastrectomy, esophagectomy, pancreatic resection, or liver lobectomy between 2000 and 2003, were selected as the study sample. The outcome measure was in-hospital mortality. The study sample was categorized into five patient groups for each procedure, and logistic regression analyses were performed for each procedure after adjustment for hospital and patient characteristics to assess the independent association between hospital volume and in-hospital mortality.
                The adjusted odds ratios showed a steady decline in mortality rates for colectomy, gastrectomy, esophagectomy, and liver lobectomy with increasing hospital volume. The adjusted mortality odds for these four procedures in very-high-volume hospitals, relative to very-low-volume hospitals, ranged from .65 to .05. As regards pancreatic resection, after adjustment for patient, clinical, and hospital factors, no statistically significant association was discernible between hospital volume and the likelihood of mortality.
                After adjustment for hospital and physician characteristics, in four of the five procedures, patients treated at higher-volume hospitals had lower in-hospital mortality rates than those treated at lower-volume hospitals. Our findings confirm, for the most part, the hypothesis that better outcomes are associated with higher-volume hospitals. To test the hypothesis that surgeon volume would not predict short- and long-term outcomes when evaluated in the setting of technical credentialing.
                Surgical volume is a known predictor of outcomes; the importance of technical credentialing has not been evaluated.
                Fifty-three credentialed surgeons operated on 871 patients in the Clinical Outcomes of Surgical Therapy Study (NCT00002575), investigating laparoscopic versus open surgery for colon cancer. Credentialing required that each surgeon document performance of at least 20 laparoscopic colon cases and demonstrate oncologic techniques on a video-recorded case. Surgeons were separated based on volume entered into the trial (low, < or =5 cases (n = 39); medium, 6-10 cases (n = 9); or high, >10 cases (n = 5)) and compared by outcomes.
                Patients treated by high volume compared with medium or low volume surgeons were older (70, 66, and 68 years; P < 0.001), more often had right-sided tumors (63%, 46%, and 53%; P < 0.001) and had more previous operations (48%, 38% and 45%; P < 0.004), respectively. Mean operative times were shorter (123, 147 and 145 minutes; P < 0.001), distal margins longer (13.4, 12.4 and 11.6 cm; P = 0.005), and lymph node harvest greater (14.8, 12.8, 12.6; P = 0.05) for high versus medium versus low volume surgeons. However, rates of conversion, complications, 5-year survival, and disease-free survival showed no significant differences.
                When tested in a randomized controlled trial with case-specific surgical technical credentialing and auditing, surgeon volume did not predict differences in rates of conversion, complications, or long-term cancer outcomes. Case-specific technical credentialing should be further studied specific to the role it could play in creating consistent, high quality outcomes. The objective of this study was to examine the relationship between hospital surgical volume and long-term survival in patients with a new diagnosis of colorectal cancer who underwent surgical resection during fiscal years 1991-2000 in the Veterans Affairs (VA) health-care system.
                This research was a cohort study of patients admitted to all VA hospitals with a new diagnosis of colorectal cancer who underwent surgical resection between October 1990 and September 2000 and followed through September 2001. Overall 5-yr cumulative survival was calculated from Kaplan-Meier estimates, while adjusted risk of death was estimated using a Cox proportional hazards model. Adjustment was made for differences in patient characteristics including comorbidity, receipt of therapy, and year of surgery.
                We identified 34,888 individuals with a new diagnosis of colorectal cancer in VA hospitals during fiscal years 1991-2000, of whom 22,633 (65%) underwent surgical resection. The majority (98.5%) were men, the mean age was 68 yr, and the two largest race/ethnic groups were whites (75%) and blacks (17%). The 5-yr cumulative survival was greater among those who received surgery in high surgical volume hospitals as defined by 25 or more procedures per year (52.1%) than among those who received surgery in low volume hospitals (48.3%). After adjusting for differences in patient characteristics, comorbidity, receipt of adjuvant therapy, and year of surgery, we found 7% and 11% increases in 5-yr survival for patients with colon and rectal cancers, respectively, who underwent surgical resection in high volume hospitals compared with those who had surgery in low volume hospitals.
                Greater hospital surgical volume is an independent predictor of prolonged long-term survival following surgery for both colon and rectal cancer in the VA health-care system. The volume-long-term mortality relationship is greater for rectal than for colon cancer patients, perhaps reflecting the fact that surgery for rectal cancer is more technically demanding. Future studies are needed to discover what aspects of clinical management explain these differences. To examine the association of surgeon and hospital case volumes with the short-term outcomes of in-hospital death, total hospital charges, and length of stay for resection of colorectal carcinoma.
                The study design was a cross-sectional analysis of all adult patients who underwent resection for colorectal cancer using Maryland state discharge data from 1992 to 1996. Cases were divided into three groups based on annual surgeon case volume--low (< or =5), medium (5 to 10), and high (>10)--and hospital volume--low (<40), medium (40 to 70), and high (> or =70). Poisson and multiple linear regression analyses were used to identify differences in outcomes among volume groups while adjusting for variations in type of resections performed, cancer stage, patient comorbidities, urgency of admission, and patient demographic variables.
                During the 5-year period, 9739 resections were performed by 812 surgeons at 50 hospitals. The majority of surgeons (81%) and hospitals (58%) were in the low-volume group. The low-volume surgeons operated on 3461 of the 9739 total patients (36%) at an average rate of 1.8 cases per year. Higher surgeon volume was associated with significant improvement in all three outcomes (in-hospital death, length of stay, and cost). Medium-volume surgeons achieved results equivalent to high-volume surgeons when they operated in high- or medium-volume hospitals.
                A skewed distribution of case volumes by surgeon was found in this study of patients who underwent resection for large bowel cancer in Maryland. The majority of these surgeons performed very few operations for colorectal cancer per year, whereas a minority performed >10 cases per year. Medium-volume surgeons achieved excellent outcomes similar to high-volume surgeons when operating in medium-volume or high-volume hospitals, but not in low-volume hospitals. The results of low-volume surgeons improved with increasing hospital volume but never equaled those of the high-volume surgeons. The Stockholm and Gotland region in Sweden has a common management protocol for the treatment of colon cancer. The aim of this study was to assess the management and treatment of colon cancer in the region and to try to identify ways to improve the outcome further.
                Clinical data on all patients diagnosed with colon cancer in the region's nine hospitals between January 1996 and December 2000 were prospectively collected. Patients were followed until December 2004, and their management and outcome analysed.
                Colon cancer was diagnosed in 2775 patients. An elective operation was performed in 2116 (76.3 per cent) patients and an emergency procedure in 590 (21.3 per cent). Emergency surgery was an independent risk factor for death. The crude overall cumulative 5-year survival was 46.2 per cent. A multivariable analysis of risk of dying and risk of local recurrence showed significant differences between hospitals. The number of lymph nodes examined in the specimens also differed between hospitals.
                Differences in the management and outcome of colon cancer in the nine hospitals, despite a common management protocol, indicate a need for improving collaboration between hospitals and multidisciplinary management. To determine whether the improved outcome of a surgical procedure in high volume hospitals is specific to the volume of the same procedure.
                Analysis of secondary data in Ontario, Canada.
                Patients having an oesophagectomy, colorectal resection for cancer, pancreaticoduodenectomy, major lung resection for cancer, or repair of an unruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm between 1994 and 1999.
                Odds ratio for death within 30 days of surgery in relation to the hospital volume of the same surgical procedure and the hospital volume of the other four procedures. Estimates were adjusted for age, sex, and comorbidity and accounted for hospital level clustering.
                With the exception of colorectal resection, 30 day mortality seemed to be inversely related not only to the hospital volume of the same procedure but also to the hospital volume of most of the other procedures. In some cases the effect of the volume of a different procedure was stronger than the effect of the volume of the same procedure. For example, the association of mortality from pancreaticoduodenectomy with hospital volume of lung resection (odds ratio for death in hospitals with a high volume of lung resection compared with low volume 0.36, 95% confidence interval 0.23 to 0.57) was much stronger than the association of mortality from pancreaticoduodenectomy with hospital volume of pancreaticoduodenectomy (0.76, 0.44 to 1.32).
                The inverse association between high volume of procedure and risk of operative death is not specific to the volume of the procedure being studied. Significant associations between caseload and surgical outcomes highlight the conflict between local cancer care and the need for centralization. This study examined the effect of hospital volume on short-term outcomes and survival, adjusting for the effect of surgeon caseload.
                Between 1998 and 2002, 8219 patients with colorectal cancer were identified in a regional population-based audit. Outcomes were assessed using univariable and multivariable analysis to allow case mix adjustment. Surgeons were categorized as low (26 or fewer operations annually), medium (27-40) or high (more than 40) volume. Hospitals were categorized as low (86 or fewer), medium (87-109) or high (more than 109) volume.
                Some 7411 (90.2 per cent) of 8219 patients underwent surgery with an anastomotic leak rate of 2.9 per cent (162 of 5581), perioperative mortality rate of 8.0 per cent (591 of 7411) and 5-year survival rate of 46.8 per cent. Medium- and high-volume surgeons were associated with significantly better operative mortality (odds ratio (OR) 0.74, P = 0.010 and OR 0.66, P = 0.002 respectively) and survival (hazard ratio (HR) 0.88, P = 0.003 and HR 0.93, P = 0.090 respectively) than low-volume surgeons. Rectal cancer survival was significantly better in high-volume versus low-volume hospitals (HR 0.85, P = 0.036), with no difference between medium- and low-volume hospitals (HR 0.96, P = 0.505).
                This study has confirmed the relevance of minimum volume standards for individual surgeons. Organization of services in high-volume units may improve survival in patients with rectal cancer.
                Copyright 2010 British Journal of Surgery Society Ltd. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. A clear benefit of increased hospital procedure volume or teaching hospital status on outcomes of rectal cancer surgery has yet to be shown. Few have examined treatment differences that may lead to varying outcomes. This study assessed the impact of hospital procedure volume and teaching status on both treatment and outcome measures of rectal cancer surgery in a large general population. Data were obtained for 1072 incident cases of rectal adenocarcinoma diagnosed in 1990 from Ontario, Canada, and treated with a major resection. Hospitals were classified by teaching status and procedure volume. Pathology reports were examined for 418 procedures. Abdominoperineal resections accounted for 31.0% of all procedures. There were no clinically significant differences in treatment measures, operative mortality, and long-term survival among the hospital groups according to both univariate and multivariate analyses. In conclusion, the absence of a hospital volume or teaching status effect on treatment and outcome measures suggests that for rectal cancer surgery in Ontario, centralization of procedures into high-volume or teaching centers is unlikely to improve surgical quality. Studies analysing the outcome after resection of low rectal cancer that has not infiltrated the anal sphincter reveal poorer long-term outcomes after abdominoperineal resections (APR) in comparison with low anterior resections (LAR). Further, a relationship between the frequency of APR and LAR for low rectal cancer and hospital volume is known. Our aim was to investigate the independent impact of hospital volume and type of resection on oncological outcomes after resection of low rectal cancer.
                In a prospective multi-centre observational study of 1557 patients with low rectal cancer undergoing LAR or APR, the long-term oncological outcomes were analysed for their dependence on hospital volume and type of procedure.
                Univariate analysis revealed that patients undergoing APR had a higher local recurrence rate (p = 0.022) and shorter disease-free survival (p < 0.001) than patients undergoing LAR, while hospital volume showed merely a tendency to impact the local recurrence rate (p = 0.060). With regard to disease-free survival, no dependence on hospital volume was to be found (p = 0.201). The rate of APR was significantly associated with hospital volume (p < 0.001). Multivariate analysis revealed an independent impact of hospital volume on local recurrence rate, while disease-free survival was influenced by the type of surgical procedure performed.
                In the surgical treatment of low rectal cancer the hospital volume has a major impact on outcome. The type of procedure does not affect the local recurrence rate but the disease free survival. Although patient and tumour characteristics are the most important determinants for outcomes in rectal cancer care, actionable factors for improving these are still unclear. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to assess the impact of surgeon and hospital factors which can actually be influenced to improve on postoperative complications, disease-free survival (DFS) and relative survival (RS) in rectal cancer.
                For 819 curatively operated rectal cancer patients, staged I-III and diagnosed between 2001 and 2005, data were derived from the population-based Cancer Registry of the Comprehensive Cancer Centre North East and supplemented by medical record examination. (Multilevel) Logistic regression analysis was performed to examine the influence of relevant factors on postoperative complications and time from diagnosis to first treatment. Besides, Cox regression analysis for DFS and relative survival analysis was performed.
                Postoperative complications were dependent on type of surgery (p=0.024) and hospital volume (p=0.029). DFS was mainly influenced by stage (p<0.001) and time to treatment (p=0.018). Actionable indicators related to RS were type of surgery (p=0.011) and time to treatment (p=0.048). Time to treatment was found to be related to co-morbidity (p=0.007), preoperative radiotherapy (p=0.003) and referral for operation (p=0.048). Nevertheless, 18.2% unexplained variation in time to treatment remained on hospital level.
                We conclude that optimal outcomes for rectal cancer care can be achieved by focusing on early detection and timely diagnosis, as well as adequate choice and timeliness of treatment in hospitals with optimal logistics for rectal cancer patients.
                Copyright 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. The purpose of this study was to determine whether morbidity and mortality in patients undergoing elective resection of colon cancer are associated with surgeon or hospital volume.
                Using the Nationwide Inpatient Sample database, we identified all adult patients who underwent elective resection for colon cancer as their primary procedure between 2003 and 2007. Cases were divided into three groups according to the mean number of resections performed annually by each surgeon: low volume (≤4/year), intermediate volume (5-9/year), or high volume (≥10/year). Annual hospital case-load was also categorized as low volume (≤30/year), intermediate volume (31-60/year), and high volume (≥61/year). Multiple logistic regression models were used to identify differences in morbidity and mortality.
                A total of 54,000 patients underwent resection of colon cancer by 7,313 surgeons in 1,398 hospitals. After adjusting for important covariates including hospital volume, colon cancer resection by high-volume surgeons was an independent predictor of decreased morbidity (odds ratio [OR], 0.91; 95% CI, 0.85-0.97) and mortality (OR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.65-0.86). Mortality was lowest among patients operated on by high-volume surgeons in high-volume hospitals (2.2% vs. 3.9%; OR, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.46-0.68).
                In patients undergoing elective resection of colon cancer, procedures done by high-volume surgeons are associated with decreased morbidity and mortality. The purpose of this prospective study was to examine the influence of hospital caseload on long-term outcome following standardization of rectal cancer surgery at a national level.
                Data relating to all 3388 Norwegian patients with rectal cancer treated for cure between November 1993 and December 1999 were recorded in a national database. Treating hospitals were divided into four groups according to their annual caseload: hospitals in group 1 (n = 4) carried out 30 or more procedures, those in group 2 (n = 6) performed 20-29 procedures, group 3 (n = 16) 10-19 procedures and group 4 (n = 28) fewer than ten procedures.
                The 5-year local recurrence rates were 9.2, 14.7, 12.5 and 17.5 per cent (P = 0.003) and 5-year overall survival rates were 64.4, 64.0, 60.8 and 57.8 per cent (P = 0.105) respectively in the four hospital caseload groups. An annual hospital caseload of less than ten procedures increased the risk of local recurrence compared with that in hospitals where 30 or more procedures were performed each year (hazard ratio 1.9 (95 per cent confidence interval (c.i.) 1.3 to 2.7); P < 0.001). Overall survival was lower for patients treated at hospitals with an annual caseload of less than ten versus hospitals with 30 or more (hazard ratio 1.2 (95 per cent c.i. 1.0 to 1.5); P = 0.023).
                The rate of local recurrence was higher for hospitals with a low annual caseload of less than ten procedures than for hospitals with a high treatment volume of 30 or more. Patients treated in small hospitals also had a shorter long-term survival than those treated in large hospitals. Recent recommendations for the reorganization of cancer services emphasize the importance of a 'minimal acceptable volume of work'. The influence of both hospital and surgical workload has been examined using a population-based series of patients with colorectal cancer.
                Nine hundred and twenty-seven patients with primary colorectal cancer diagnosed during the period 1 January to 30 June 1993 were identified from the North Western Regional Cancer Registry. Case notes were reviewed for information on patient age and sex, histological diagnosis, disease stage, degree of tumour differentiation, mode of admission, identity of operating surgeon, timing of operative procedure, and use of radiotherapy and/or chemotherapy. A multivariate Cox proportional hazards model was then constructed to examine, simultaneously, the effects of patient-, disease- and health service-related variables on survival.
                Age, tumour stage and differentiation, and mode of admission were revealed as significant independent prognostic variables. After adjusting for these variables, neither operator grade (consultant versus junior), consultant workload nor hospital throughput were identified as independently influencing patient survival.
                The results of this study do not support an association between volume of work and patient outcome. Clinical practice guidelines in cancer are a relevant component of Catalonian Cancer Strategy aimed at promoting equity of access to therapy and quality of cancer care. The colorectal cancer (CRC) guideline was first published in 2003 and subsequently updated in 2008. This study examined the quality of therapy administered to patients with rectal cancer in public hospitals in Catalonia (Spain) in 2005 and 2007, according to CRC guideline recommendations.
                We conducted a multicentre retrospective cohort study of patients who underwent curative-intent surgery for primary rectal cancer at Catalonian public hospitals in 2005 and 2007. Data were drawn from clinical records.
                The study covered 1831 patients with rectal cancer. Performance of total mesorectal excision (TME) was poorly reported by surgeons (46.4%) and pathologists (36.2%). Pre-operative radiotherapy was performed on 52% of stage-II and -III patients. Compared to high-caseload hospitals, those with a low caseload (≤11 cases/year) registered more Hartman's procedures, worse TME quality, a higher rate of post-operative complications and lower adherence to recommended pre-operative radio-chemotherapy.
                Reporting quality of care is essential for ascertaining current performance status and opportunities for improvement. In our case, there is a need for the quality of the information included in clinical records to be improved, and variability in adherence to guideline recommendations to be reduced. In view of the fact that heterogeneity in the quality of the health care process was linked to hospital caseload, the health authorities have decided to reorganise the provision of rectal cancer care.
                Copyright © 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. To obtain information on the contemporary management of colorectal cancer in the UK to assist in the development of management guidelines, an independent, 1-year population audit was carried out in Trent Region and Wales.
                Data were collected on all patients admitted to hospital with a new diagnosis of colorectal cancer in a 1-year period.
                Of 3520 patients, 3221 (91.5 per cent) had surgery. Emergency/urgent operations were carried out as the first procedure in 552 (17.1 per cent). Resection of the primary disease was achieved in 2859 (81.2 per cent) and this was deemed curative in 2070 (58.8 per cent). Twenty-one per cent of all patients had metastatic disease at presentation. Overall, 30-day operative mortality was 7.6 per cent (21.7 per cent for emergency/urgent and 5.5 per cent for scheduled/elective procedures). Anastomotic dehiscence occurred in 105 patients (4.9 per cent); this was 3.9 per cent after colonic resections and 7.9 per cent after anterior rectal resections. Elective rectal excision resulted in a permanent stoma in 486 of 1054 patients (46 per cent).
                This initial report from a comprehensive, independent audit of colorectal cancer management shows improvement in some aspects of treatment as evidenced by improved anastomotic dehiscence and stoma rates when compared with previous studies. However, there has been little improvement in the proportion of patients presenting with advanced disease, and curative resection rates remain low. The evidence for a relationship between patient outcomes and clinician and hospital volume is increasing. The National Colorectal Cancer Care Survey was undertaken to determine the management patterns in Australia for individuals newly diagnosed with colorectal cancer in a 3 month period in the year 2000.
                All new cases of colorectal cancer registered at each Australian State Cancer Registry were entered into the survey. This generated a questionnaire that was sent to the treating surgeon. Chi-squared tests and logistic regression analyses were used to determine levels of statistical significance.
                Of 2,383 surgical questionnaires generated, 2,015 (85%) were completed. The majority (58%) of surgeons treated one or two patients with colorectal cancer over the 3 months of the survey. There was variation across surgeon cohorts for preoperative measures including the use of deep vein thrombosis prophylaxis. Patients seen by low volume surgeons were most likely to be given a permanent stoma (P < 0.0001). Patients with rectal cancer who were operated on by high volume surgeons were significantly more likely to receive a colonic pouch (P < 0.0001).
                This nationwide population-based survey of the treatment of colorectal cancer patients suggests that the delivery of care by surgeons (the majority) who treat patients with rectal cancer infrequently should be evaluated. Although numerous studies suggest that there is an inverse relation between hospital volume of surgical procedures and surgical mortality, the relative importance of hospital volume in various surgical procedures is disputed.
                Using information from the national Medicare claims data base and the Nationwide Inpatient Sample, we examined the mortality associated with six different types of cardiovascular procedures and eight types of major cancer resections between 1994 and 1999 (total number of procedures, 2.5 million). Regression techniques were used to describe relations between hospital volume (total number of procedures performed per year) and mortality (in-hospital or within 30 days), with adjustment for characteristics of the patients.
                Mortality decreased as volume increased for all 14 types of procedures, but the relative importance of volume varied markedly according to the type of procedure. Absolute differences in adjusted mortality rates between very-low-volume hospitals and very-high-volume hospitals ranged from over 12 percent (for pancreatic resection, 16.3 percent vs. 3.8 percent) to only 0.2 percent (for carotid endarterectomy, 1.7 percent vs. 1.5 percent). The absolute differences in adjusted mortality rates between very-low-volume hospitals and very-high-volume hospitals were greater than 5 percent for esophagectomy and pneumonectomy, 2 to 5 percent for gastrectomy, cystectomy, repair of a nonruptured abdominal aneurysm, and replacement of an aortic or mitral valve, and less than 2 percent for coronary-artery bypass grafting, lower-extremity bypass, colectomy, lobectomy, and nephrectomy.
                In the absence of other information about the quality of surgery at the hospitals near them, Medicare patients undergoing selected cardiovascular or cancer procedures can significantly reduce their risk of operative death by selecting a high-volume hospital. The aim of this study was to document a population-based rate of abdominoperineal resections for adenocarcinoma of the rectum in the state of Victoria, Australia. It also determined whether surgeon caseload or specialist colorectal training affects this rate.
                All resections for adenocarcinoma of the rectum (International Classification of Diseases for Oncology, 3rd edition C20) that were performed in Victoria in the year 2005 were included. Procedures for rectosigmoid or colon cancer were excluded. The sample was taken from the Victorian Cancer Registry. The rate of abdominoperineal resections was calculated by dividing the total number of abdominoperineal resections by the total number of procedures for rectal cancer. Mixed-effects logistic regression was used to estimate the odds ratio for surgeon caseload and specialist colorectal training.
                There were 582 resections available for analysis. Patients were mostly males (66%) and over 60 years of age (67.7%). The overall rate of abdominoperineal resection was 23.4%. The rate of abdominoperineal resections for low rectal cancers was lower (42.8%) among surgeons who had specialist colorectal training compared with those who did not (60.6%) (OR = 2.06; 95% CI, 1.24-3.42).
                The rate of abdominoperineal resection in Victoria for 2005 was 23.4%. Patients with low rectal cancer operated on by surgeons who had had specialist colorectal training were significantly less likely to undergo an abdominoperineal resection compared with patients undergoing an operation by surgeons who did not have specialist colorectal training. The increased use of laparoscopic colectomy for colon cancer requires the evaluation of hospital case volume, quality care, and training systems, considering the difficulty of this surgery for various tumor locations.
                We assessed the quality of this procedure in Japan, based on hospital case volume and tumor location. A total of 3,765 patients were enrolled across 567 hospitals between July and December 2007. We analyzed patient characteristics, postoperative surgical complications, the administration of stapling devices or chemotherapy, hospital volume and teaching status, postoperative length of stay, total charges, and operating room time. Hospitals were classified into four case-volume categories: high (> or =5 cases per month), intermediate to high (3-4), low to intermediate (1-2), and low (<1). Multivariate analysis was used to test the impact of hospital category and tumor location.
                Ten high-volume hospitals performed 401 cases, while 355 low-volume hospitals did 903. Hospital case volume, operating time, and complications affected postoperative stay and total costs. Longer procedural time was an independent predictor of complications. Tumor location, case volume, and teaching status explained the variations in procedural time individually but not complications. Training systems highlighting the applicability of techniques are important to promote the quality of laparoscopic colectomy. There are significant differences in patient outcome after potentially curative surgery for colorectal cancer that relate to the surgeon performing the procedure. The reasons for these differences remain obscure. The aim of this study was to examine the effect of the surgeon's specialty on patient outcome after potentially curative colorectal cancer surgery and to identify factors that may help explain differences in outcome among specialty groups.
                Between 1990 and 1993, 378 patients underwent potentially curative surgery for colorectal cancer by surgeons with different specialty interests, vascular or transplant, general, and colorectal surgeons, in a large teaching hospital. Information on operative details, including the length of the resection specimen, resection margins, whether the tumor was removed with en bloc resection of adjacent clinically involved organs, number of lymph nodes removed, and stage was collected. Factors affecting both local and overall recurrence rates were analyzed using logistic regression analysis at both univariate and multivariate levels.
                At a median follow-up of 45 months the only factors associated with a significantly reduced local recurrence rate were the length of the resection specimen (odds ratio, 0.56; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.31-0.99) and colorectal specialty (P = 0.04). Patients operated on by a general surgeon were 3.42 times (95 percent confidence interval, 1.32-8.9) more likely to develop a local recurrence than those operated on by a colorectal surgeon. For overall recurrence, early stage disease (P < 0.0001), absence of vascular invasion (0.005), and colorectal specialty (0.025) were the only factors associated with significantly improved outcome at multivariate analysis.
                These data show that surgeons with an interest in colorectal cancer achieve lower local and overall recurrence rates compared with vascular or transplant or general surgeons. Differences in local recurrence rates seem to be predominantly related to the extent of resection performed and demonstrate the need to remove an adequate specimen when performing potentially curative colorectal cancer surgery. Previous studies have shown that significant surgeon-related differences in survival exist following surgery for colorectal cancer. It is not clear whether these differences were due to differences in caseload or degree of specialization.
                Outcome in 3200 patients who underwent resection for colorectal cancer between 1991 and 1994 was analysed on the basis of caseload and degree of specialization of individual surgeons. Five-year survival rates, and the corresponding hazard ratios adjusted for case mix, were calculated.
                Cancer-specific survival rate at 5 years following curative resection varied among surgeons from 53.4 to 84.6 per cent; the adjusted hazard ratios varied from 0.48 to 1.55. Cancer-specific survival rate at 5 years following curative resection was 70.2, 62.0 and 65.9 per cent for surgeons with a high, medium and low case volume respectively. There were no consistent differences in the adjusted hazard ratios by volume. Cancer-specific survival rate at 5 years following curative resection was 72.7 per cent for those treated by specialists and 63.8 per cent for those treated by non-specialists; the adjusted hazard ratio for non-specialists was 1.35 (95 per cent confidence interval 1.13 to 1.62; P = 0.001).
                The differences in outcome following apparently curative resection for colorectal cancer among surgeons appear to reflect the degree of specialization rather than case volume. It is likely that increased specialization will lead to further improvements in survival.
                Copyright 2004 British Journal of Surgery Society Ltd. To compare surgeon and hospital procedure volume as predictors of outcomes for patients with rectal cancer.
                Although a "volume-outcome" relationship exists for several major cancer operations, the impact of procedure volume on outcomes following rectal cancer surgery remains uncertain, and it has not been determined whether hospital or surgeon volume is a more important predictor of outcomes.
                A retrospective population-based cohort study utilizing the Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results (SEER)-Medicare linked database identified 2,815 rectal cancer patients aged 65 and older who had surgery for a primary tumor diagnosed in 1992-1996 in a SEER area. Hospital- and surgeon-specific procedure volume was ascertained based on the number of claims submitted over the 5-year study period. Outcome measures were mortality at 30 days and 2 years, overall survival, and the rate of abdominoperineal resections. Age, sex, race, comorbid illness, cancer stage, and socioeconomic status were used to adjust for differences in case mix.
                Neither hospital- nor surgeon-specific procedure volume was significantly associated with 30-day postoperative mortality or rates of rectal sphincter-sparing operations. Although an association between hospital volume and mortality at 2 years was evident, this finding was no longer significant once surgeon-specific volume was controlled for. In contrast, surgeon-specific volume was associated with 2-year mortality and remained an important predictor even after adjustment for hospital volume. Surgeon volume was also better than hospital procedure volume at predicting long-term survival.
                Surgeon-specific experience as measured by procedure volume can have a significant impact on survival for patients with rectal cancer. A strong association between high hospital procedure volume and survival following colon cancer resection has been demonstrated. However, the importance of surgeon case volume as a determinant of outcome has been less well studied, and it is unclear whether hospital or surgeon volume is the more powerful predictor of outcomes.
                A retrospective population-based cohort study utilizing the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)-Medicare linked database identified 24,166 colon cancer patients aged 65 years and older who had surgery for a primary tumor diagnosed in 1991-1996 in a SEER area. Hospital and surgeon-specific procedure volume was ascertained based on the number of claims submitted over the 6-year study period. Outcome measures were mortality at 30 days and 2 years, overall survival, and the frequency of operations requiring an intestinal stoma. Age, sex, race, comorbid illness, cancer stage, socioeconomic status, emergent hospitalization, and the presence of obstruction/perforation were used to adjust for differences in case-mix.
                After adjusting for surgeon procedure volume, high hospital procedure volume remained a strong predictor of low post-operative mortality rates (P < 0.001 for each outcome with and without adjustment for surgeon procedure volume). Surgeon-specific procedure volume was also an important predictor of surgical outcomes (P = 0.002 for 30-day mortality, P = 0.001 for 2-year mortality), although this effect was attenuated after adjusting for hospital volume (P = 0.03 for 30-day mortality, P = 0.02 for 2-year mortality). Hospital volume and surgeon volume were each an important predictor of the ostomy rate. Among high volume institutions and surgeons, individual providers with unusually high ostomy rates could be identified.
                Both hospital and surgeon-specific procedure volume predict outcomes following colon cancer resection; but hospital volume may exert a stronger effect. Therefore, efforts to optimize the quality of colon cancer surgery should focus on multidisciplinary aspects of hospital care rather than solely on intraoperative technique.
                Copyright 2003 Wiley-Liss, Inc. The association between hospital volumen and outcome of major cancer surgery is being debated at present. We analysed the outcome of rectal cancer surgery in Denmark during the period 1994-99.
                All patients with a first-time rectal cancer were registered in a national database during the 5-year period. In this observational cohort study, the influence of hospital case volume on resectional procedure, complications, 30-day mortality and 5-year mortality was analysed.
                The register comprised 5021 patients. Surgery was performed in 27 hospitals with <15 operations per year, 15 hospitals with 15-30 operations per year and 11 hospitals with >30 operations per year. In a multivariate model, the risk of permanent colostomy was significantly increased in the group of low-volume hospitals. On the contrary, volume did not influence the risk of anastomotic leakage, 30-day mortality and 5-year mortality. However, a large variation in 5-year mortality was observed particularly within the low-volume group of hospitals.
                In this study, only risk of having a permanent colostomy during surgery for rectal cancer was significantly related to hospital case volume. When individual hospitals were analysed, a large variation in 5-year mortality was observed within the low-volume group of hospitals. With conventional blunt surgical resection of rectal cancer, local recurrence rates are high and the individual surgeon putatively influences patient outcome. With total mesorectal excision (TME) local recurrence rates have been reduced and intersurgeon variability may be less important. The 'TME project' was a collaborative project that included surgical workshops in Stockholm between 1994 and 1997. The aim of this study was to assess the impact of the project on the practice of rectal cancer surgery in Stockholm and to analyse whether surgeon case volume and participation in the workshops influenced patient outcome.
                All 652 patients who had an abdominal resection for rectal cancer in Stockholm between 1995 and 1997 were included. Outcome was compared in patients operated on by teams that included high-volume surgeons (more than 12 operations per year) with teams that included low-volume surgeons (12 operations or fewer per year), as well as between teams that including workshop participants and non-participants.
                Forty-six surgeons operated on the 652 patients. Five high-volume surgeons operated on 48 per cent of the patients. In these, outcome was significantly better than in patients treated by low-volume surgeons (local recurrence rate 4 versus 10 per cent (P = 0.02); rate of rectal cancer death 11 versus 18 per cent (P = 0.007)). Twenty-six surgeons were workshop participants and performed 93 per cent of the operations. Radiotherapy, TME and sphincter-preserving surgery were more common among patients treated by workshop participants.
                The TME project has had an impact on rectal cancer surgical practice in Stockholm. Variability in patient outcome was mainly related to case volume, with better results obtained in patients treated by high-volume surgeons. This study was designed to investigate, in a population-based setting, the surgical outcome in patients with rectal cancer according to the hospital volume.
                Since 1995 all patients with rectal cancer have been registered in the Swedish Rectal Cancer Registry. Hospitals were classified, according to number treated per year, as low-volume, intermediate-volume, or high-volume hospitals (<11, 11-25, or >25 procedures per year). Postoperative mortality, reoperation rate within 30 days, local recurrence rate, and overall five-year survival were studied. For postoperative morbidity and mortality the whole cohort from 1995 to 2003 (n = 10,425) was used. For cancer-related outcome only, those with five-year follow-ups, from 1995 to 1998, were used (n = 4,355).
                In this registry setting the postoperative mortality rate was 3.6% in low-volume hospitals, and 2.2% in intermediate-volume and high-volume hospitals (P = 0.002). The reoperation rate was 10%, with no differences according to volume. The overall local recurrence rates were 9.4%, 9.3%, and 7.5%, respectively (P = 0.06). Significant difference was found among the nonirradiated patients (P = 0.004), but not among the irradiated patients (P = 0.45). No differences were found according to volume in the absolute five-year survival.
                Postoperative mortality and local recurrence in nonirradiated patients were lower in high-volume hospitals. No difference was seen between volumes in reoperation rates, overall local recurrence, or absolute five-year survival. The aim of this study was to determine by means of a national database whether higher surgeon caseload correlates with greater utilization of sphincter-sparing procedures than of abdominoperineal resections in treatment of patients with rectal cancer.
                Patients with a primary International Classification of Diseases-9 diagnosis code of rectal cancer who underwent a sphincter-sparing procedure or abdominoperineal resection were selected from the 1997 Nationwide Inpatient Sample, a database that represents 20 percent of all U.S. community hospital discharges. Multivariable logistic regression models were used on a 20 percent sample of this database to estimate the risk-adjusted relationship between surgeon caseload volume and the odds of receiving a sphincter-sparing procedure. All models were adjusted for age, gender, race, hospital region, and patient comorbidity.
                The study population (n = 477) was 70.4 percent white and 57.9 percent male with an average age of 67.6 years. The mean Deyo comorbidity score was 7.0. Patients treated by surgeons in the highest-volume category (> or =10 rectal cancer surgeries per year) compared with those treated by surgeons in the lowest-volume category (1-3 rectal cancer surgeries per year) were significantly more likely to undergo a sphincter-sparing procedure, after adjustment for other covariates (odds ratio = 5.05; 95 percent confidence interval, 2.5-10.22).
                This analysis suggests that rectal cancer patients treated by high-volume surgeons are five times more likely to undergo sphincter-sparing procedures than those treated by low-volume surgeon. This has significant implications for those seeking a sphincter-preserving option for the treatment of their rectal cancer. This prospective multicenter study investigated the effect of hospital caseload on early postoperative outcome of surgery for carcinoma of the colon in 75 German hospitals and included 2293 patients. The hospitals were divided into those with a caseload of 1-30 (group A), 31-60 (group B), and more than 60 (group C) operations. Increasing caseload was associated only with fewer general postoperative complications. It was also associated with significantly greater use of antibiotic prophylaxis. No significant differences between the groups were found in resection rates, intraoperative complications, specific postoperative complications, overall postoperative morbidity, hospital mortality, or 30-day mortality. The significance of hospital caseload for the short-term postoperative outcome following surgery on the colon should not be overestimated. Basing conclusions about the results to be expected simply on the case volume is impermissible. On the basis of the available data it is not possible to establish a threshold value, that is, a minimum number of required operations. Hospital volume or caseload is often used as a surrogate measure for quality of care in rectal cancer treatment. The aim of this study was to assess outcome in a low-volume hospital and secondly to examine the impact of surgeon volume on the results.
                A retrospective review of 131 patients' charts identified 102 patients receiving apparently curative resections for rectal cancer in the period 1993-2002. Our study population did not differ significantly from the national average except for shift towards more advanced Dukes stage (p=0.00) and a higher rate of node positive patients at time of diagnosis (p=0.00).
                There were no significant differences from the national outcome results, neither in perioperative mortality or complications, nor 5-year survival or local recurrences. Thirteen different on-staff surgeons performed rectal cancer surgery in our hospital in the decade, and median annual caseload was four. We detect a difference in 5-year survival when grouping the surgeons by annual caseload, but the significance is inconclusive. It is, however, interesting that in 85% of the resections, two or more certified gastrointestinal surgeons with specific training were involved. A relatively high number (9%) of discrepancies between the Norwegian Rectal Cancer Registry (NRCR) database and the local hospital database were identified.
                Adequate results for surgical outcome can be achieved in a low-volume hospital. Surgeon volume showed inconclusive impact for our results of outcome. A local quality initiative is justified in addition to national registries. The aim of the study was to investigate the impact of hospital caseload on the short-term postoperative outcome of patients with rectal carcinoma.
                A multicentre study involving 75 German hospitals was carried out between January and December 1999. Some 1463 patients with rectal carcinoma were studied.
                The hospitals were divided into three groups by annual caseload as follows: less than 20 (group 1), 20-40 (group 2) and more than 40 (group 3). The groups were identical in terms of age, gender, height, weight, tumour stage, risk factors and American Society of Anesthesiologists classification. Postoperative morbidity was less in hospitals with a case volume of more than 20 patients per year (41.7 per cent in group 2 versus 49.9 per cent in group 1). The proportion of patients undergoing abdominoperineal resection with a permanent stoma was less in hospitals with a case volume of more than 40 patients per year (26.4 per cent in group 3 versus 34.0 per cent in group 2).
                A large caseload in rectal surgery results in a significant reduction in permanent stoma formation and postoperative morbidity. Aim of this study was to describe treatment patterns and outcome according to region and hospital type and volume among patients with rectal cancer in the Netherlands.
                All patients with rectal carcinoma diagnosed in the period 2001-2006 were selected from the Netherlands Cancer Registry. Logistic regression analyses were performed to examine the influence of relevant factors on the odds of receiving preoperative radiotherapy and on the odds of postoperative mortality. Relative survival analysis was used to estimate relative excess risk of dying according to hospital type and volume.
                In total, 16 039 patients were selected. Patients diagnosed in a teaching or university hospital had a lower odds (OR 0.85; 95% CI 0.73-0.99 and OR 0.70; 95% CI 0.52-0.92) and patients diagnosed in a hospital performing >50 resections per year had a higher odds (OR 1.95; 95% CI 1.09-1.76) of receiving preoperative radiotherapy. A large variation between individual hospitals in rates of preoperative radiotherapy and between Comprehensive Cancer Centre-regions in the administration of preoperative chemoradiation was revealed. Postoperative mortality was not correlated to hospital type or volume. Patients with T1-M0 tumours diagnosed in a hospital with >50 resections per year had a better survival compared to patients diagnosed in a hospital with <25 resections per year (RER 0.11; 95% CI 0.02-0.78).
                This study demonstrated variation in treatment and outcome of patients with rectal cancer in the Netherlands, with differences related to hospital volume and hospitals teaching or academic status. However, variation in treatment patterns between individual hospitals proved to be much larger than could be explained by the investigated characteristics. Future studies should focus on the reasons behind these differences, which could lead to a higher proportion of patients receiving optimal treatment for their stage of the disease.
                Copyright (c) 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. High hospital case volume has been associated with improved outcome after open operation for colorectal malignancies.
                To assess the impact of hospital case volume on short-term outcome after laparoscopic operation for colon cancer, we conducted an analysis of patients who underwent laparoscopic colon resection within the COlon Cancer Laparoscopic or Open Resection (COLOR) trial.
                A total of 536 patients with adenocarcinoma of the colon were included in the analysis. Median operating time was 240, 210 and 188 min in centers with low, medium, and high case volumes, respectively (p < 0.001). A significant difference in conversion rate was observed among low, medium, and high case volume hospitals (24% vs 24% vs 9%; p < 0.001). A higher number of lymph nodes were harvested at high case volume hospitals (p < 0.001). After operation, fewer complications (p = 0.006) and a shorter hospital stay (p < 0.001) were observed in patients treated at hospitals with high caseloads.
                Laparoscopic operation for colon cancer at hospitals with high caseloads appears to be associated with improved short-term results. Postoperative mortality after some types of cancer surgery is inversely related to the number of operations performed at a hospital (i.e., hospital volume). This study assessed the association of hospital volume with colostomy rates and survival for patients with rectal cancer in a large representative cohort identified from the California Cancer Registry.
                We identified 7257 patients diagnosed from January 1, 1994, through December 31, 1997, with stage I-III rectal cancer who underwent surgical resection. Registry data were linked to hospital discharge abstracts and ZIP-code-level data from the 1990 U.S. Census. Associations of hospital volume with permanent colostomy and 30-day mortality were assessed with the Mantel-Haenszel trend test and logistic regression. Overall survival was examined with the Kaplan-Meier method and a multivariable Cox proportional hazards model. Multivariable analyses adjusted for demographic and clinical variables and patient clustering within hospitals. All tests of statistical significance were two-sided.
                In unadjusted analyses across decreasing quartiles of hospital volume, we observed statistically significant increases in colostomy rates (29.5%, 31.8%, 35.2%, and 36.6%; P<.001) and in 30-day postoperative mortality (1.6%, 1.6%, 2.9%, and 4.8%; P<.001) and a decrease in 2-year survival (83.7%, 83.2%, 80.9%, and 76.6%; P<.001). The adjusted risks of permanent colostomy (odds ratio [OR] = 1.37, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.10 to 1.70), 30-day mortality (OR = 2.64, 95% CI = 1.41 to 4.93), and 2-year mortality (hazard ratio = 1.28, 95% CI = 1.15 to 1.44) were greater for patients at hospitals in the lowest volume quartile than for patients at hospitals in the highest volume quartile. Stratification by tumor stage and comorbidity index did not appreciably affect the results. Adjusted colostomy rates varied statistically significantly (P<.001) among individual hospitals independent of volume.
                Rectal cancer patients who underwent surgery at high-volume hospitals were less likely to have a permanent colostomy and had better survival rates than those treated in low-volume hospitals. Identifying processes of care that contribute to these differences may improve patients' outcomes in all hospitals. A prospective audit of the management of colorectal cancer was established to investigate factors associated with variation in survival observed within the former Wessex region (population three million).
                Some 5173 patients (4562 surgically treated) with colorectal cancer diagnosed between 1991 and 1994 were followed for 5 years. Details of referral, diagnosis, surgical treatment, postoperative complications and outcomes were collected. The association between surgical outcomes and survival and both case volume and specialization (defined to include membership of the Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland) was explored, accounting for variables with prognostic significance.
                There was a statistically significant association between high-volume operators (more than 50 operations per year) and specialization. The greatest benefit was observed with respect to specialists versus non-specialists, in terms of a lower postoperative mortality rate (odds ratio 0.67 (95 per cent confidence interval (c.i. 0.53 to 0.84)), lower anastomotic leak rates (odds ratio 0.46 (c.i. 0.31 to 0.66)), higher local recurrence-free survival (hazard ratio 0.56 (0.44 to 0.71)) and better long-term survival (hazard ratio 0.76 (c.i. 0.71 to 0.83)).
                There is a stronger association between surgical specialization in coloproctology and beneficial outcome than with high-volume caseloads. This is not entirely accounted for by case-mix or patient population, and is seen following colonic and rectal surgery and among patients with advanced disease.
                Copyright 2003 British Journal of Surgery Society Ltd. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Aim of this study was to describe treatment patterns and outcome according to region, and according to hospital types and volumes among patients with colon cancer in the Netherlands.
                All patients with invasive colon carcinoma diagnosed in the period 2001-2006 were selected from the Netherlands Cancer Registry. Logistic regression analyses were performed to examine the influence of relevant factors on the odds of having adequate lymph node evaluation, receiving adjuvant chemotherapy and postoperative mortality. Relative survival analysis was used to estimate relative excess risk of dying according to hospital type and volume.
                In total, 39 907 patients were selected. Patients diagnosed in a university hospital had a higher odds (OR 2.47; 95% CI 2.19-2.78) and patients diagnosed in a hospital with >100 colon carcinoma diagnoses annually had a lower odds (OR 0.70; 95% CI 0.64-0.77) of having >/=10 lymph nodes evaluated. The odds of receiving adjuvant chemotherapy was lower in patients diagnosed in teaching hospitals (OR 0.85; 95% CI 0.73-0.98) and university hospitals (OR 0.56; 95% CI 0.45-0.70) compared to patients diagnosed in non-teaching hospitals. Funnel plots showed large variation in these two outcome measures between individual hospitals. No differences in postoperative mortality were found between hospital types or volumes. Patients diagnosed in university hospitals and patients diagnosed in hospitals with >50 diagnoses of colon carcinoma per year had a better survival.
                Variation in treatment and outcome of patients with colon cancer in the Netherlands was revealed, with differences between hospital types and volumes. However, variation seemed mainly based on the level of the individual hospital.
                Copyright (c) 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. Although numerous studies have demonstrated an association between surgical volume and improved outcome in cancer surgery, the specific structures and mechanisms of care that are associated with volume and lead to improved outcomes remain poorly defined. We hypothesize that there are modifiable surgeon and hospital characteristics that explain observed volume-outcome relationships.
                Retrospective cohort study.
                Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results cancer registry areas.
                Patients aged 66 years and older, diagnosed and surgically treated for stage I, II, or III colon cancer between 1992 and 1996 (n = 22 672).
                Thirty-day postoperative mortality and 30-day postoperative procedural interventions, including reoperation and image-guided percutaneous procedures.
                Surgeon volume, but not hospital volume, is a significant predictor of postoperative procedural intervention (adjusted odds ratio for very high-volume surgeons vs low-volume surgeons, 0.79; 95% confidence interval, 0.64-0.98). In the unadjusted analyses, high hospital volume (odds ratio, 0.67; 95% confidence interval, 0.56-0.81) and very high hospital volume (odds ratio, 0.65; 95% confidence interval, 0.54-0.79) is associated with lower postoperative mortality. Postoperative procedural intervention is not a significant mediator of the relationship between hospital volume and mortality. A single variable-the presence of sophisticated clinical services-was the most important explanatory variable underlying the relationship between hospital volume and mortality.
                Very high surgeon volume is associated with a reduction in surgical complications. However, the association between increasing hospital volume and postoperative mortality appears to derive mainly from a full spectrum of clinical services that may facilitate the prompt recognition and treatment of complications. There is current interest in the correlation between surgical volume and outcomes. Survival in patients with rectal cancer appears to improve when carried out by surgeons who do high volumes of procedures. A similar correlation for patients with colon cancer has never been clearly established. The aim of this study was to determine whether surgical volume was an independent predictor for survival in patients undergoing surgery for stage II colon cancer.
                Population-based findings were collected from all patients diagnosed with stage II colon cancer in Western Australia between 1993 and 2003. The Kaplan-Meier product limit estimate of survival was used to calculate overall and cancer-specific survival. The Cox proportional hazards model was used to define the correlation between a number of covariates and survival. The results are recorded as hazard ratio (HR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI).
                From 1993 to 2003, 1467 patients underwent resections for stage II colon cancers. Significant independent predictors for overall survival were surgeon carrying out more than 25 procedures (P = 0.0001, HR 0.657, 95%CI 0.532-0.811), surgery in a private hospital (P = 0.0001, HR 0.487, 95%CI 0.400-0.594), use of chemotherapy (P = 0.001, HR 0.664, 95%CI 0.496-0.837), age at diagnosis (P = 0.0001, HR 1.014, 95%CI 1.027-1.044) and T staging and vascular invasion (T4 and vascular positive P = 0.001, HR 1.850, 95%CI 1.294-2.645).
                Surgical volume was a significant independent predictor for survival in patients undergoing resections for stage II colon cancers. Surgeons carrying out only 25 procedures over a 10-year period outperformed surgeons doing fewer cases. To investigate the role of hospital volume and individual hospitals on long term outcomes (local recurrence and survival) of rectal cancer patients.
                One thousand thirty-eight patients with rectal cancer were diagnosed between 1996 and 1998. From these, we analysed 884 patients with a resected invasive primary rectal cancer. Median follow-up was 5.7 years. The impact of hospital volume (<10, 10-30 and >30 rectal cancer patients annually) on local recurrence and survival was examined in a Cox model. Differences between the four largest clinics in the high volume group were also investigated.
                In the multivariate model predicting survival the following variables were significant: UICC stage, grade, age, local recurrence, and (neo-) adjuvant therapy treatment. In the multivariate model predicting local recurrence UICC stage, tumour localisation, and neoadjuvant therapy treatment were significant variables. Hospital volume was not a significant factor for survival or local recurrence. Within the high volume category one hospital showed significantly worse local recurrence rates than all other hospitals, but no survival difference could be seen between the four largest hospitals of the high volume group.
                This analysis of a rectal cancer population found that hospital volume did not determine survival or local recurrence. Detailed clinical data with long term follow-up from cancer registries are vital to demonstrate the quality of routine care. The aim of this study was to quantify factors related to operative mortality after colorectal resection in the Netherlands.
                Multilevel logistic regression modelling was used. Institutional effects were calculated with and without adjustment for specific patient (age, sex, urgency of operation) and hospital (number of procedures, type of hospital) characteristics. All adult Dutch patients who underwent primary colorectal resection between 1994 and 1999 were included, except those who had (sub)total colectomy or local rectal resection.
                A total of 67 594 patients underwent colorectal resection. The in-hospital mortality rate was 7.0 per cent (elective 3.9 per cent, acute 14.3 per cent). Acute operation (odds ratio 3.89) and age (odds ratios 2.63, 5.23 and 10.13 for patients aged 50-69, 70-79 and 80 or more years respectively compared with those aged less than 50 years) had the strongest effects, followed by male sex (odds ratio 1.48) and type of hospital. There was no difference in operative mortality rate between low-, medium- and high-volume hospitals.
                In the Netherlands, advanced age and acute operation are by far the most important factors related to operative mortality after colorectal resection. Male sex and type of hospital have only a modest effect, and there is no discernible effect of hospital volume.
                Copyright (c) 2005 British Journal of Surgery Society Ltd. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Greater hospital volume has been associated with lower mortality after colorectal cancer surgery. The contribution of surgeon volume to processes and outcomes of care is less well understood. We assessed the relation of surgeon and hospital volume to postoperative and overall mortality, colostomy rates, and use of adjuvant radiation therapy.
                From the California Cancer Registry, we studied 28,644 patients who underwent surgical resection of stage I to III colorectal cancer during 1996 to 1999 and were followed up to 6 years after surgery to assess 30-day postoperative mortality, overall long-term mortality, permanent colostomy, and use of adjuvant radiation therapy.
                Across decreasing quartiles of hospital and surgeon volume, 30-day postoperative mortality ranged from 2.7% to 4.2% (P < 0.001). Adjusting for age, stage, comorbidity, and median income among patients with colorectal cancer who survived at least 30 days, patients in the lowest quartile of surgeon volume had a higher adjusted overall mortality rate than those in the highest quartile (hazard ratio, 1.16; 95% confidence interval, 1.09-1.24), as did patients in the lowest quartile of hospital volume relative to those treated in the highest quartile (hazard ratio, 1.11; 95% confidence interval, 1.05-1.19). For rectal cancer, adjusted colostomy rates were significantly higher for low-volume surgeons, and the use of adjuvant radiation therapy was significantly lower for low-volume hospitals.
                Greater surgeon and hospital volumes were associated with improved outcomes for patients undergoing surgery for colorectal cancer. Further study of processes that led to these differences may improve the quality of colorectal cancer care.
The results confirm clearly the presence of a volume-outcome relationship in colorectal cancer surgery, based on hospital and surgeon caseload, and specialisation. The volume-outcome relationship appears somewhat stronger for the individual surgeon than for the hospital; particularly for overall 5-year survival and operative mortality, there were differences between US and non-US data, suggesting provider variability at hospital level between different countries, making it imperative that every country or healthcare system must establish audit systems to guide changes in the service provision based on local data, and facilitate centralisation of services as required. Overall quality of the evidence was low as all included studies were observational by design. In addition there were discrepancies in the definitions of caseload and colorectal specialist. However ethical challenges associated with the conception of randomised controlled trials addressing the volume outcome relationship makes this the best available evidence.