World Journal of Surgery

, Volume 29, Issue 8, pp 994–999 | Cite as

High Hospital Volume Is Associated with Better Outcomes for Breast Cancer Surgery: Analysis of 233,247 Patients

  • Ulrich GullerEmail author
  • Shawn Safford
  • Ricardo Pietrobon
  • Michael Heberer
  • Daniel Oertli
  • Nitin B. Jain



The relationship between hospital volume and outcomes needs to be further elucidated for low-risk procedures such as surgical therapy of localized breast cancer. The objective of this investigation was to assess the relationship between hospital volume and outcomes for breast cancer surgery.


A total of 233,247 patients who underwent breast-conserving therapy (BCT) and breast-ablative therapy (BAT) for localized breast cancer were extracted from 13 years (1988–2000) of the Nationwide Inpatient Samples. Hospital volume was classified as low (<30 cases/year), intermediate (≥ 30 to <70cases/year), and high (≥ 70 cases/year). Multiple linear and logistic regression analyses were used to assess the risk-adjusted association between hospital volume and outcomes.


In risk-adjusted analyses, patients operated on at low-volume hospitals were 3.04 (p = 0.03) times more likely to die after BCT compared with patients operated on at high-volume hospitals. Similarly, low-volume hospitals had a significantly higher likelihood of postoperative complications (odds ratio [OR] = 1.73, p = 0.01 for BCT; OR = 1.44, p < 0.001 for BAT) compared with high-volume hospitals. Compared with low-volume hospitals, length of hospital stay was significantly shorter and nonroutine patient discharge significantly lower for high-volume providers for both BCT and BAT (all p < 0.001). Patients were also significantly less likely to undergo BCT if operated on in a low- or intermediate-volume hospital compared with a high-volume provider (p < 0.001).


High-volume hospitals had significantly lower nonroutine patient discharge, postoperative morbidity and mortality, shorter length of hospital stay, and higher likelihood of performing BCT. Referral of patients with localized breast cancer to high-volume hospitals may be justified.


Hospital Volume Nationwide Inpatient Sample Breast Cancer Surgery Localize Breast Cancer Nationwide Inpatient Sample Database 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.



The authors thank the Swiss National Foundation, Bern, Switzerland; Krebsliga beider Basel, Basel, Switzerland; Freiwillige Akademische Gesellschaft, Basel, Switzerland; and Fondazione Gustav e Ruth Jacob, Aranno, Switzerland, for their financial support of Dr. Guller’s research fellowship at the Duke University Medical Center. The authors thank the Division of Orthopedic Surgery, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina, purchasing the Nationwide Inpatient Samples 1988–2000.


  1. 1.
    Begg, CB, Cramer, LD, Hoskins, WJ,  et al. 1998Impact of hospital volume on operative mortality for major cancer surgeryJAMA28017471751CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Halm, EA, Lee, C, Chassin, MR 2002Is volume related to outcome in health care? A systematic review and methodolgic critique of the literatureAnn. Intern. Med.137511520PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Hillner, BE, Smith, TJ, Desch, CE 2000Hospital and physician volume or specialization and outcomes in cancer treatment: importance in quality of cancer careJ. Clin. Oncol.1823272340PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Birkmeyer, JD, Siewers, AE, Finlayson, EVA,  et al. 2002Hospital volume and surgical mortality in the United StatesN. Engl. J. Med.34611281137CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Gillis, CR, Hole, DJ 1996Survival outcome of care by specialist surgeons in breast cancer: a study of 3786 patients in the west of ScotlandBMJ312145148PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Skinner, KA, Helsper, JT, Deapen, D,  et al. 2003Breast cancer: do specialists make a difference? AnnSurg. Oncol.10606615CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Roohan, PJ, Bickell, NA, Baptiste, MS,  et al. 1998Hospital volume differences and five-year survival from breast cancerAm. J. Public Health88454457PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    NIS Technical Documentation. Rockville, MD, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, February 2003Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    1999 HCUP Nationwide Inpatient Sample (NIS) Comparison Report (May 3, 2002) (accessed June 1, 2005)
  10. 10.
    Comparative Analysis of HCUP and NHDS Inpatient Discharge Data. Technical Supplement 13, NIS release 5. Agency for Health Care Policy and Research, Rockville MD. (accessed: June 1, 2005)
  11. 11.
    Deyo, RA, Cherkin, DC, Ciol, MA 1992Adapting a clinical comorbidity index for use with ICD-9-CM administrative databasesJ. Clin. Epidemiol.45613619CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Charlson, ME, Pompei, P, Alez, KL,  et al. 1987A new method of classifying prognostic comorbidity in longitudinal studies: development and validationJ. Chron. Dis.40373383CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hannan, EL, O’Donnell, JF, Kilburn, H,Jr,  et al. 1989Investigation of the relationship beteen volume and mortality for surgical procedures performed in New York State hospitalsJAMA262503510CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Harcourt, KF, Hicks, KL 2003Is there a relationship between case volume and survival in breast cancer?Am. J. Surg.185407410CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Fisher, B, Anderson, S, Redmond, CK,  et al. 1995Reanalysis and results after 12 years of follow-up in a randomized clinical trial comparing total mastectomy with lumpectomy with or without irradiation in the treatment of breast cancerN. Engl. J. Med.33314561461CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Fisher, B, Anderson, S, Bryant, J,  et al. 2002Twenty-year follow-up of a randomized trial comparing total mastectomy, lumpectomy, and lumpectomy plus irradiation for the treatment of invasive breast cancerN. Engl. J. Med.34712331241CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Curran, D, Dongen, JP, Aaronson, NK,  et al. 1998Quality of life of early-stage breast cancer patients treated with radical mastectomy or breast-conserving procedures: results of EORTC Trial 10801. The European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC), Breast Cancer Cooperative Group (BCCG)Eur. J. Cancer34307314CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Wellisch, DK, DiMatteo, R, Silverstein, M,  et al. 1989Psychosocial outcomes of breast cancer therapies: lumpectomy versus mastectomyPsychosomatics30365373PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Kiebert, GM, Haes, JC, Velde, CJ 1991The impact of breast-conserving treatment and mastectomy on the quality of life of early-stage breast cancer patients: a reviewJ. Clin. Oncol.910591070PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Ganz, PA, Schag, AC, Lee, JJ,  et al. 1992Breast conservation versus mastectomy. Is there a difference in psychological adjustment or quality of life in the year after surgery?Cancer6917291738PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Haes, JC, Curran, D, Aaronson, NK, Fentiman, IS 2003Quality of life in breast cancer patients aged over 70 years, participating in the EORTC 10850 randomised clinical trialEur. J. Cancer39945951CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Société Internationale de Chirurgie 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ulrich Guller
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • Shawn Safford
    • 3
  • Ricardo Pietrobon
    • 2
    • 4
  • Michael Heberer
    • 1
  • Daniel Oertli
    • 1
  • Nitin B. Jain
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Surgery, Divisions of General Surgery and Surgical ResearchUniversity of BaselSwitzerland
  2. 2.Center for Excellence in Surgical OutcomesDuke University Medical CenterDurhamUSA
  3. 3.Department of SurgeryDuke University Medical CenterDurhamUSA
  4. 4.Division of Orthopedic SurgeryDuke University Medical CenterDurhamUSA

Personalised recommendations