Surgical Endoscopy

, Volume 27, Issue 2, pp 565–568 | Cite as

Centralisation of upper-GI cancer services: is the hub quicker than the spoke?

  • S. J. MonkhouseEmail author
  • J. Torres-Grau
  • D. R. Bawden
  • C. Ross
  • R. J. Krysztopik



The aim of this study was to assess whether patients diagnosed with oesophageal or gastric cancer at a local district general hospital (the “spoke”) have a similar temporal pathway through the decision-making and treatment process compared to those patients presenting at the centralised, tertiary hospital (the “hub”).


Between April 2010 and April 2011, patients with a new diagnosis of oesophagogastric cancer from both hub and spoke hospitals were analysed. Data regarding diagnosis, time from diagnosis to multidisciplinary meeting (MDM) discussion, and time from MDM decision to first treatment were all recorded. Statistical analysis was performed using parametric two-tailed t test to assess significance.


There was a statistically significant increase in the time from diagnosis to MDM discussion at the spoke hospital compared to the hub (13.3 days vs. 25.67 days; p = 0.001). However, time to first treatment (surgery, palliative therapy, neoadjuvant therapy, or best supportive care) was significantly increased in the hub hospital compared to the spoke (43.4 days vs. 25.5 days; p = 0.023).


Notwithstanding its limitations, this study is the first of its kind to show that there is a disparity in the management pathways of patients who first present to a regional hospital rather than the tertiary centre. Patients at the spoke hospital have a longer lead time into the MDM but nonoperative treatment appears to be delivered more quickly locally.


Oesophagus Gastric Multidisciplinary Centralisation Cancer 



The authors thank Serena Hodges, MDM Coordinator, and Joanne Price, Upper GI Cancer Specialist Nurse, for access to patient databases.


Monkhouse S. J, Torres-Grau J, Bawden D. R, Ross C, and Krysztopik R. J. have no conflicts of interest or financial ties to disclose.


  1. 1.
    Polednak AP (2003) Trends in survival for both histologic types of esophageal cancer in US surveillance, epidemiology and end results areas. Int J Cancer 105(1):98–100PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Birkmeyer JD, Stukel TA, Siewers AE, Goodney PP, Wennberg DE, Lucas FL (2003) Surgeon volume and operative mortality in the United States. N Engl J Med 349:2117–2127PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Gill AJ, Martin IG (2002) Survival from upper gastrointestinal cancer in New Zealand: the effect of distance from a major hospital, socio-economic status, ethnicity, age and gender. ANZ J Surg 72:643–646PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Department of Health (2001) Improving outcomes in upper gastrointestinal cancers. Department of Health, London.
  5. 5.
    Siriwardena AK (2007) Centralisation of upper gastrointestinal cancer surgery. Ann R Coll Surg Engl 89:335–336PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Siewert JR, Stein HJ (1986) Carcinoma of the gastroesophageal junction: classification, pathology and extent of resection. Dis Esophagus 9:173–182Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Macleod U, Mitchell ED, Burgess C et al (2009) Risk factors for delayed presentation and referral of symptomatic cancer: evidence for common cancers. Br J Cancer 101(Suppl 2):S92–S101PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Forshaw MJ, Gossage JA, Stephens J et al (2006) Centralisation of oesophagogastric cancer services—can specialist units deliver? Ann R Coll Surg Engl 88:566–570PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • S. J. Monkhouse
    • 1
    Email author
  • J. Torres-Grau
    • 1
  • D. R. Bawden
    • 1
  • C. Ross
    • 1
  • R. J. Krysztopik
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of SurgeryRoyal United HospitalBathUK
  2. 2.Department of Upper GI SurgeryBristol Royal InfirmaryBristolUK

Personalised recommendations