PURPOSE Despite a long-known association between annual hospital volume and outcome, little progress has been made in shifting high-risk surgery to safer hospitals. This study investigates whether the risk-standardized mortality rate (RSMR) could serve as a stronger proxy for surgical quality than volume. METHODS We included all patients who underwent complex oncologic surgeries in Germany between 2010 and 2018 for any of five major cancer types, splitting the data into training (2010-2015) and validation sets (2016-2018). For each surgical group, we calculated annual volume and RSMR quintiles in the training set and applied these thresholds to the validation set. We studied the overlap between the two systems, modeled a market exit of low-performing hospitals, and compared effectiveness and efficiency of volume- and RSMR-based rankings. We compared travel distance or time that would be required to reallocate patients to the nearest hospital with low-mortality ranking for the specific procedure. RESULTS Between 2016 and 2018, 158,079 patients were treated in 974 hospitals. At least 50% of high-volume hospitals were not ranked in the low-mortality group according to RSMR grouping. In an RSMR centralization model, an average of 32 patients undergoing complex oncologic surgery would need to relocate to a low-mortality hospital to save one life, whereas 47 would need to relocate to a high-volume hospital. Mean difference in travel times between the nearest hospital to the hospital that performed surgery ranged from 10 minutes for colorectal cancer to 24 minutes for pancreatic cancer. Centralization on the basis of RSMR compared with volume would ensure lower median travel times for all cancer types, and these times would be lower than those observed. CONCLUSION RSMR is a promising proxy for measuring surgical quality. It outperforms volume in effectiveness, efficiency, and hospital availability for patients.

No abstract

ObjectivesThe updated 8th edition of the tumor, node, metastases (TNM) classification system for non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) attempts to improve on the previous 7th edition in predicting outcomes and guiding management decisions. This study sought to determine whether the 8th edition was more accurate in predicting long-term survival in a European population of surgically treated NSCLC patients.MethodsWe scanned the archives of the Heckeshorn Lung Clinic for patients with preoperative clinical stages of IIIA or lower (based on the 7th edition), who received surgery for NSCLC between 2009 and 2014. We used pathologists’ reports and data on tumor size and location to reassign tumor stages according to the 8th edition. We then analyzed stage specific survival and compared the accuracy of the two systems in predicting long-term survival. We excluded patients with neoadjuvant treatment, incomplete follow-up data, tumor histologies other than NSCLC, or death within 30 days of surgery.ResultsThe final analysis included 1,013 patients. Overall five-year survival was 47.3%. The median overall survival (OS) was 63 months (range 1–222), and the median disease-free survival (DFS) was 50 months (0–122). The median follow-up time for non-censored patients was 84 months (range 60–122).ConclusionsWe found significant survival differences between the newly defined stages 1A1, 1A2 and 1A3 (previously 1A). We also found that the 8th edition of TMN classification was a significantly better predictor of long-term survival, compared to the 7th edition.

Background: In patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) the pathologic lymph node status N1 is a heterogeneous entity, and different forms of lymph node involvement may represent different prognoses. For methodological reasons, the 8th edition of the TNM staging system for NSCLC makes no official changes to the N descriptor. However, there is evidence that different subforms of N1 disease are associated with different prognoses, and it is now recommended that clinicians record the number of affected lymph nodes and nodal stations for further analyses. In this investigation we sought to determine whether patients with different levels and types of N1 lymph node involvement had significantly different 5-year survival rates. Methods: We retrospectively identified 90 patients with NSCLC (61 men, 29 women), who were treated between 2008 and 2012 and found to have pathologic N1 lymph node involvement and tumor sizes corresponding to T1 or T2. All patients were treated in curative intent with surgical lung resection and systematic mediastinal and hilar lymph node dissection. Results: The overall 5-year survival rate was 56.3%. In the univariate analysis, lower tumor stage and tumor histology other than large-cell carcinoma were significantly associated with better long-term survival. Patients with solitary lymph node metastases also had longer disease-free survival than those with multiple nodal metastases. In the multivariate analysis, large-cell carcinoma and Union for International Cancer Control (UICC) stage IIB were independently associated with worse survival, while pneumonectomy, compared to lobar or sublobar resection, was independently associated with better survival. Conclusions: Although we did not observe significant prognostic differences between N1 subcategories within our patient population, other analyses may yield different results. Therefore, these data highlight the need for large, well-designed multicenter studies to confirm the clinical significance of N1 subcategories.

No abstract