Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Centralization of Services and Reduction of Adverse Events in Pancreatic Cancer Surgery

  • Published:
World Journal of Surgery Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

The perioperative period is critical in the outcome for patients with pancreatic cancer. The aim of the present analysis was to examine adverse events in patients dying under surgical care in relation to changes in the organization of pancreatic cancer surgery.

Methods

From 1996 to 2005, 1,033 patients with pancreatic cancer, mean age of 71 years (range 21–97 years) died under surgical care. The incidence, mortality, and number of operations for pancreatic cancer remained stable across the time period, but the proportion of patients undergoing surgery in the five specialist cancer centers increased from 50 to 80 % (p < 0.001). Prior to death 260 (25 %) patients underwent operation and 96 (9 %) had endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). There was a significant rise in ERCP (p = 0.03) and a decrease in non-resectional operations (p = 0.001).

Results

Since 1996, 52 (15 %) patients in whom 90 adverse events were recorded died following surgical intervention: 28 adverse events related to the perioperative period with 15 due to direct procedure complications such as bleeding or anastomotic leak; 13 were attributed to decision making around the choice or timing of the procedure. The postoperative mortality after curative pancreatic resection reduced from 3.5 to 1.8 %. Identified adverse events fell significantly in patients who died relating to the operative period (median of 3 per annum [1994–2000] to 1 per annum [2001–2005]) (p = 0.014) and medical care (3–0) (p = 0.003).

Conclusions

Continuous peer review audit has demonstrated a reduction in the number of adverse events in patients dying with pancreatic cancer under surgical care as increased numbers of patients treated in specialist cancer centers.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Pisani P, Parkin DM, Ferlay J (1993) Estimates of the worldwide mortality from eighteen major cancers in 1985. Implications for prevention and projections of future burden. Int J Cancer 55:891–903

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Summary statistics for cancer of the pancreas: Information Services Division, NHS (2006). http://www.isdscotland.org/Health-Topics/Cancer/Cancer-Statistics/Pancreatic/. Accessed Oct 2012

  3. Wagner M, Redaelli C, Lietz M et al (2004) Curative resection is the single most important factor determining outcome in patients with pancreatic adenocarcinoma. Br J Surg 91:586–594

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Bachmann MO, Alderson D, Peters TJ et al (2003) Influence of specialization on the management and outcome of patients with pancreatic cancer. Br J Surg 90:171–177

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Saif MW (2011) Adjuvant therapy of pancreatic cancer: beyond gemcitabine. Highlights from the “2011 ASCO Gastrointestinal Cancers Symposium”. San Francisco, CA, January 20–22, 2011. JOP 12:106–109

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Ghaneh P, Smith R, Tudor-Smith C et al (2008) Neoadjuvant and adjuvant strategies for pancreatic cancer. Eur J Surg Oncol 34:297–305

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Neoptolemos JP, Stocken DD, Bassi C et al (2010) Adjuvant chemotherapy with fluorouracil plus folinic acid vs gemcitabine following pancreatic cancer resection: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA 304:1073–1081

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Calman K, Hine D (1995) A policy for commissioning cancer services. Great Britain Department of Health, p 66

  9. Improving outcomes in upper gastro-intestinal cancer. Referral and diagnosis. Great Britain Department of Health

  10. Birkmeyer JD, Siewers AE, Finlayson EV et al (2002) Hospital volume and surgical mortality in the United States. N Engl J Med 346:1128–1137

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Yeo CJ, Cameron JL, Sohn TA et al (1997) Six hundred fifty consecutive pancreaticoduodenectomies in the 1990s: pathology, complications, and outcomes. Ann Surg 226:248–257 (discussion 257–260)

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Sosa JA, Bowman HM, Gordon TA et al (1998) Importance of hospital volume in the overall management of pancreatic cancer. Ann Surg 228:429–438

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Neoptolemos JP, Russell RC, Bramhall S et al (1997) Low mortality following resection for pancreatic and periampullary tumours in 1026 patients: UK survey of specialist pancreatic units. UK Pancreatic Cancer Group. Br J Surg 84:1370–1376

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Hannan EL, Radzyner M, Rubin D et al (2002) The influence of hospital and surgeon volume on in-hospital mortality for colectomy, gastrectomy, and lung lobectomy in patients with cancer. Surgery 131:6–15

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Simunovic M, Urbach D, Major D et al (2010) Assessing the volume-outcome hypothesis and region-level quality improvement interventions: pancreas cancer surgery in two Canadian Provinces. Ann Surg Oncol 17:2537–2544

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Lemmens VE, Bosscha K, van der Schelling G et al (2011) Improving outcome for patients with pancreatic cancer through centralization. Br J Surg 98:1455–1462

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. McPhee JT, Hill JS, Whalen GF et al (2007) Perioperative mortality for pancreatectomy: a national perspective. Ann Surg 246:246–253

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Thompson AM, Stonebridge PA (2005) Building a framework for trust: critical event analysis of deaths in surgical care. BMJ 330(7500):1139–1142

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Thomas EJ, Petersen LA (2003) Measuring errors and adverse events in health care. J Gen Intern Med 18:61–67

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Bakkevold KE, Arnesjo B, Kambestad B (1992) Carcinoma of the pancreas and papilla of Vater: presenting symptoms, signs, and diagnosis related to stage and tumour site. A prospective multicentre trial in 472 patients. Norwegian Pancreatic Cancer Trial. Scand J Gastroenterol 27:317–325

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Parks RW, Bettschart V, Frame S et al (2004) Benefits of specialisation in the management of pancreatic cancer: results of a Scottish population-based study. Br J Cancer 91:459–465

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Bramhall SR, Allum WH, Jones AG et al (1995) Treatment and survival in 13,560 patients with pancreatic cancer, and incidence of the disease, in the West Midlands: an epidemiological study. Br J Surg 82:111–115

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Gouma DJ, van Geenen RC, van Gulik TM et al (2000) Rates of complications and death after pancreaticoduodenectomy: risk factors and the impact of hospital volume. Ann Surg 232:786–795

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. DeOliveira ML, Winter JM, Schafer M et al (2006) Assessment of complications after pancreatic surgery: a novel grading system applied to 633 patients undergoing pancreaticoduodenectomy. Ann Surg 244:931–937 (discussion 937–939)

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Bruce J, Krukowski ZH, Al-Khairy G et al (2001) Systematic review of the definition and measurement of anastomotic leak after gastrointestinal surgery. Br J Surg 88:1157–1168

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Stitzenberg KB, Sigurdson ER, Egleston BL et al (2009) Centralization of cancer surgery: implications for patient access to optimal care. J Clin Oncol 27:4671–4678

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Finks JF, Osborne NH, Birkmeyer JD (2011) Trends in hospital volume and operative mortality for high-risk surgery. N Engl J Med 364:2128–2137

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Surgery, Ninewells Hospital and Medical School, Dundee, Scotland, UK

    Jamie Young

  2. Department of Surgical and Molecular Oncology, Ninewells Hospital and Medical School, Dundee, Scotland, UK

    Alistair Thompson & Iain Tait

  3. NHS National Services, Edinburgh, Scotland, UK

    Lynsey Waugh & Gillian McPhillips

Authors
  1. Jamie Young
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Alistair Thompson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Iain Tait
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Lynsey Waugh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Gillian McPhillips
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jamie Young.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Young, J., Thompson, A., Tait, I. et al. Centralization of Services and Reduction of Adverse Events in Pancreatic Cancer Surgery. World J Surg 37, 2229–2233 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00268-013-2108-4

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00268-013-2108-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation