Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Redefining High-Volume Gastric Cancer Centers: The Impact of Operative Volume on Surgical Outcomes

  • Gastrointestinal Oncology
  • Published:
Annals of Surgical Oncology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

Performance of technically complex surgery at high-volume (HV) centers is associated with improved outcomes.

Objective

The aim of this study was to assess whether hospital gastrectomy volume is associated with surgical outcomes, and what threshold of case volume meaningfully impacts surgical outcomes.

Methods

We conducted a retrospective review of adult NCDB patients with gastric adenocarcinoma undergoing gastrectomy between 2004 and 2015. A multivariable Cox proportional hazards model with restricted cubic splines was used to examine the association of annual hospital gastrectomy volume and overall survival. Bootstrap simulation was used to estimate the cut-point corresponding to maximum change in log hazard ratio. Hospitals were divided into HV (≥ 17 cases/year) and low-volume (LV; < 17 cases/year) groups. We examined the relationship between volume groups and adequate nodal examination, R0 resection, unplanned readmission, and 30- and 90-day mortality.

Results

Our cohort consisted of 29,559 patients (7.8% treated at an HV center). Treatment at an HV center was associated with an increased likelihood of adequate nodal examination [odds ratio (OR) 2.12, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.94–2.32] and R0 resection among patients with cardia tumors (OR 1.42, 95% CI 1.07–1.88). Patients treated at HV centers had decreased 30- and 90-day postoperative mortality, which was more pronounced in those undergoing total gastrectomy.

Conclusions

Treatment at an HV gastrectomy center is associated with improved surgical outcomes. Our study identified 17 cases/year as a clinically meaningful distinction between HV and LV centers. This definition of an HV center should be considered when evaluating regionalization of gastric cancer care to improve patient outcomes.

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.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Luft HS, Bunker JP, Enthoven AC. Should operations be regionalized? N Engl J Med. 1979;301(25):1364–9.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Ho V, Heslin MJ. Effect of hospital volume and experience on in-hospital mortality for pancreaticoduodenectomy. Ann Surg. 2003;237(4):509–14.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. Birkmeyer JD, Stukel TA, Siewers AE, Goodney PP, Wennberg DE, Lucas FL. Surgeon volume and operative mortality in the United States. N Engl J Med. 2003;349(22):2117–27.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Sosa JA, Bowman HM, Gordon TA, et al. Importance of hospital volume in the overall management of pancreatic cancer. Ann Surg. 1998;228(3):429–38.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Luo G, Zhang Y, Guo P, Wang L, Huang Y, Li K. Global patterns and trends in stomach cancer incidence: age, period and birth cohort analysis. Int J Cancer. 2017;141(7):1333–44.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Hannan EL, Radzyner M, Rubin D, Dougherty J, Brennan MF. The influence of hospital and surgeon volume on in-hospital mortality for colectomy, gastrectomy, and lung lobectomy in patients with cancer. Surgery. 2002;131(1):6–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Finlayson EV, Goodney PP, Birkmeyer JD. Hospital volume and operative mortality in cancer surgery: a national study. Arch Surg. 2003;138(7):721–725; discussion 726.

  8. Ikoma N, Kim B, Elting LS, Shih YT, Badgwell BD, Mansfield P. Trends in volume-outcome relationship in gastrectomies in Texas. Ann Surg Oncol. 2019;26(9):2694–702.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Enzinger PC, Benedetti JK, Meyerhardt JA, et al. Impact of hospital volume on recurrence and survival after surgery for gastric cancer. Ann Surg. 2007;245(3):426–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Macdonald JS, Smalley SR, Benedetti J, et al. Chemoradiotherapy after surgery compared with surgery alone for adenocarcinoma of the stomach or gastroesophageal junction. N Engl J Med. 2001;345(10):725–30.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Karimi P, Islami F, Anandasabapathy S, Freedman ND, Kamangar F. Gastric cancer: descriptive epidemiology, risk factors, screening, and prevention. Cancer Epidemiol Biomark Prevent. 2014;23(5):700–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Cunningham D, Allum WH, Stenning SP, et al. Perioperative chemotherapy versus surgery alone for resectable gastroesophageal cancer. N Engl J Med. 2006;355(1):11–20.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Shapiro J, van Lanschot JJB, Hulshof M, et al. Neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy plus surgery versus surgery alone for oesophageal or junctional cancer (CROSS): long-term results of a randomised controlled trial. Lancet Oncol. 2015;16(9):1090–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Mokdad AA, Ali A, Yopp AC, et al. Adoption of evidence-based novel therapies in the treatment of gastric cancer: a national observational study. Cancer. 2018;124(6):1122–31.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Ju MR, Wang SC, Zeh HJ, Porembka MR. Minimally invasive gastrectomy for cancer and anastomotic options. J Surg Oncol. 2020;122(1):49–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. American College of Surgeons. National Cancer Data Base. 1996–2016. https://www.facs.org/Quality-Programs/Cancer/NCDB.

  17. American College of Surgeons. About the National Cancer Database. https://www.facs.org/quality-programs/cancer/ncdb/about.

  18. Desquilbet L, Mariotti F. Dose-response analyses using restricted cubic spline functions in public health research. Stat Med. 2010;29(9):1037–57.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Wainess RM, Dimick JB, Upchurch GR Jr, Cowan JA, Mulholland MW. Epidemiology of surgically treated gastric cancer in the United States, 1988–2000. J Gastrointest Surg. 2003;7(7):879–83.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Datta J, Lewis RS Jr, Mamtani R, et al. Implications of inadequate lymph node staging in resectable gastric cancer: a contemporary analysis using the National Cancer Data Base. Cancer. 2014;120(18):2855–65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Wu H, Rusiecki JA, Zhu K, Potter J, Devesa SS. Stomach carcinoma incidence patterns in the United States by histologic type and anatomic site. Cancer Epidemiol Biomark Prev. 2009;18(7):1945–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Diaz A, Pawlik TM. Optimal location for centralization of hospitals performing pancreas resection in California. JAMA Surg. 2020;155(3):261–3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Ghaferi AA, Birkmeyer JD, Dimick JB. Hospital volume and failure to rescue with high-risk surgery. Med Care. 2011;49(12):1076–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Gordon TA, Burleyson GP, Tielsch JM, Cameron JL. The effects of regionalization on cost and outcome for one general high-risk surgical procedure. Ann Surg. 1995;221(1):43–9.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Gordon TA, Bowman HM, Tielsch JM, Bass EB, Burleyson GP, Cameron JL. Statewide regionalization of pancreaticoduodenectomy and its effect on in-hospital mortality. Ann Surg. 1998;228(1):71–8.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Surgery, Division of Surgical Oncology, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, TX, USA

    Michelle R. Ju MD, Herbert J. Zeh III MD, Adam C. Yopp MD, Sam C. Wang MD & Matthew R. Porembka MD

  2. Department of Population and Clinical Science, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, TX, USA

    James-Michael Blackwell MPH

Authors
  1. Michelle R. Ju MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. James-Michael Blackwell MPH
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Herbert J. Zeh III MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Adam C. Yopp MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Sam C. Wang MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Matthew R. Porembka MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Matthew R. Porembka MD.

Ethics declarations

Disclosure

Michelle R. Ju, James-Michael Blackwell, Herbert J. Zeh III, Adam C. Yopp, Sam C. Wang, and Matthew R. Porembka have no conflicts of interest to disclose.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary file1 (DOCX 62 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Ju, M.R., Blackwell, JM., Zeh, H.J. et al. Redefining High-Volume Gastric Cancer Centers: The Impact of Operative Volume on Surgical Outcomes. Ann Surg Oncol 28, 4839–4847 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-021-09655-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-021-09655-y

Search

Navigation