Facility Type is Associated with Margin Status and Overall Survival of Patients with Resected Intrahepatic Cholangiocarcinoma.
Aged
Bile Duct Neoplasms
/ mortality
Cancer Care Facilities
/ statistics & numerical data
Cholangiocarcinoma
/ mortality
Female
Follow-Up Studies
Hepatectomy
/ mortality
Hospitals, High-Volume
/ statistics & numerical data
Hospitals, Low-Volume
/ statistics & numerical data
Humans
Male
Margins of Excision
Prognosis
Retrospective Studies
Survival Rate
Journal
Annals of surgical oncology
ISSN: 1534-4681
Titre abrégé: Ann Surg Oncol
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 9420840
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Nov 2019
Nov 2019
Historique:
received:
10
03
2019
pubmed:
2
8
2019
medline:
3
3
2020
entrez:
2
8
2019
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Many studies have demonstrated associations between surgical resections at academic centers and improved outcomes, particularly for complex operations. However, few studies have examined this relationship in intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (ICC). The hypothesis of this study was that facility type is associated with improved postoperative outcomes and survival for patients with ICC who undergo resection. Patients with stages 1 to 3 ICC who underwent hepatectomy were identified using the National Cancer Database (NCDB) (2004-2014). Facilities were categorized as academic or community centers per Commission on Cancer designations. High-volume hospitals were those that performed 11 or more hepatectomies per year. Multilevel logistic mixed-effects models to identify predictors of outcomes and parametric survival-time models were used to determine overall survival (OS). The study identified 2256 patients. Of these patients, 423 (18.8%) were treated at community centers, and 1833 (81.3%) were treated at academic centers. Nearly all high-volume centers were academic facilities (98.5% academic vs. 1.5% community centers), whereas low-volume centers were mixed (65.5% academic vs. 34.5% community centers) (p < 0.001). Surgery performed at an academic center was an independent predictor of decreased positive margins (odds ratio [OR], 0.71; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.51-0.98; p = 0.04), a lower 90-day mortality rate (OR, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.39-0.97; p = 0.03), and improved OS (hazard ratio [HR], 0.78; 95% CI, 0.63-0.96; p = 0.02). Facility hepatectomy volume was not independently associated with any short- or long-term outcomes. Treatment at an academic center is associated with fewer positive resection margins, a decreased 90-day mortality rate, and improved OS for patients who undergo ICC resection. Facility surgical volume was not shown to be significantly associated with any postoperative outcomes after adjustment for patient and disease characteristics.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Many studies have demonstrated associations between surgical resections at academic centers and improved outcomes, particularly for complex operations. However, few studies have examined this relationship in intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (ICC). The hypothesis of this study was that facility type is associated with improved postoperative outcomes and survival for patients with ICC who undergo resection.
METHODS
METHODS
Patients with stages 1 to 3 ICC who underwent hepatectomy were identified using the National Cancer Database (NCDB) (2004-2014). Facilities were categorized as academic or community centers per Commission on Cancer designations. High-volume hospitals were those that performed 11 or more hepatectomies per year. Multilevel logistic mixed-effects models to identify predictors of outcomes and parametric survival-time models were used to determine overall survival (OS).
RESULTS
RESULTS
The study identified 2256 patients. Of these patients, 423 (18.8%) were treated at community centers, and 1833 (81.3%) were treated at academic centers. Nearly all high-volume centers were academic facilities (98.5% academic vs. 1.5% community centers), whereas low-volume centers were mixed (65.5% academic vs. 34.5% community centers) (p < 0.001). Surgery performed at an academic center was an independent predictor of decreased positive margins (odds ratio [OR], 0.71; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.51-0.98; p = 0.04), a lower 90-day mortality rate (OR, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.39-0.97; p = 0.03), and improved OS (hazard ratio [HR], 0.78; 95% CI, 0.63-0.96; p = 0.02). Facility hepatectomy volume was not independently associated with any short- or long-term outcomes.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
Treatment at an academic center is associated with fewer positive resection margins, a decreased 90-day mortality rate, and improved OS for patients who undergo ICC resection. Facility surgical volume was not shown to be significantly associated with any postoperative outcomes after adjustment for patient and disease characteristics.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31368018
doi: 10.1245/s10434-019-07657-5
pii: 10.1245/s10434-019-07657-5
pmc: PMC6788972
mid: NIHMS1536194
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
4091-4099Subventions
Organisme : NIDDK NIH HHS
ID : T32 DK007754
Pays : United States
Organisme : NIDDK NIH HHS
ID : DK007754-13 (T32 Research Training in Alimentary T
Pays : United States
Références
J Hepatol. 2014 Jun;60(6):1268-89
pubmed: 24681130
Expert Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2018 Jul;12(7):671-681
pubmed: 29911912
Cancer Control. 2017 Jul-Sep;24(3):1073274817729241
pubmed: 28975832
J Am Coll Surg. 2010 Sep;211(3):325-30
pubmed: 20800188
J Gastrointest Surg. 2013 Dec;17(12):2114-22
pubmed: 24072683
Surgery. 2017 Aug;162(2):203-210
pubmed: 28504112
HPB (Oxford). 2019 Aug;21(8):981-989
pubmed: 30591307
Cancer. 2015 Nov 15;121(22):3998-4006
pubmed: 26264223
N Engl J Med. 2002 Apr 11;346(15):1128-37
pubmed: 11948273
J Clin Epidemiol. 1992 Jun;45(6):613-9
pubmed: 1607900
Arch Surg. 2004 Feb;139(2):137-41
pubmed: 14769569
Am Surg. 2006 Nov;72(11):1038-42; discussion 1061-9, 1133-48
pubmed: 17120945
Int J Qual Health Care. 2017 Oct 1;29(6):797-802
pubmed: 29025099
J Am Coll Surg. 2017 Mar;224(3):362-372
pubmed: 27923615
JAMA. 2006 Oct 25;296(16):1973-80
pubmed: 17062860
Surgery. 2015 Aug;158(2):323-30
pubmed: 26003913
Surgery. 2018 Feb;163(2):318-323
pubmed: 28943041
HPB (Oxford). 2015 Aug;17(8):669-80
pubmed: 26172134
JAMA Oncol. 2017 Dec 1;3(12):1722-1728
pubmed: 28241198
JAMA Surg. 2018 Sep 1;153(9):850-851
pubmed: 29617542
Chin Clin Oncol. 2018 Oct;7(5):52
pubmed: 30180751
J Am Coll Surg. 2011 May;212(5):889-98
pubmed: 21398151
J Gastrointest Surg. 2008 Sep;12(9):1534-9
pubmed: 18612710
HPB (Oxford). 2017 Dec;19(12):1046-1057
pubmed: 28967535