Management and outcomes in digestive cancer surgery: design and initial results of a multicenter cohort study.

BACKGROUND most studies that analyze the influence of structure factors on clinical outcomes are retrospective, based on clinical-administrative databases, and mainly focusing on surgical volume. OBJECTIVE to study variations in the process and outcomes of oncologic surgery for esophagus, stomach, pancreas, liver metastases and rectum cancers in Catalonia, as well as the factors associated with these variations. PATIENTS AND METHOD a retrospective (2002) and prospective (2003-05) multicenter cohort study. Data forms were designed to collect patient, process, and care outcome characteristics before surgery, at hospital discharge, and at 3 and 6 months after discharge. Main outcome measures were hospital and follow-up mortality, complications, re-interventions, and relapse rates. RESULTS 49 hospitals (80%) participated in the retrospective phase, 44 of which (90%) also participated in the prospective phase: 3,038 patients (98%) were included. No differences were observed in the profile of operated patients according to hospital level of complexity, but clinical-pathological staging and other functional status variables could not be assessed because of over 20% of missing values. There was significant variability in the volume of interventions as well as in certain aspects of the healthcare process depending on type of cancer and center complexity. High rates of esophageal cancer mortality (18.2% at discharge, 27.3% at 6 months) and of complications and re-interventions for all cancers assessed, especially rectal cancer (18.4% re-interventions at 6 months), were identified. CONCLUSIONS the study of the variability identified will require adequate risk-adjustment and should take into account different structure factors. It is necessary that information included in medical records be improved.

[1]  R. Steele,et al.  The influence of surgeon case volume on outcome in site-specific cancer surgery. , 1996, European journal of surgical oncology : the journal of the European Society of Surgical Oncology and the British Association of Surgical Oncology.

[2]  A. Enthoven,et al.  Should operations be regionalized? The empirical relation between surgical volume and mortality. , 1980, The New England journal of medicine.

[3]  D. Bentrem,et al.  Outcomes in Oncologic Surgery: Does Volume Make a Difference? , 2005, World Journal of Surgery.

[4]  Bjørn Møller,et al.  A National Strategic Change in Treatment Policy for Rectal Cancer—Implementation of Total Mesorectal Excision as Routine Treatment in Norway. A National Audit , 2002, Diseases of the colon and rectum.

[5]  David Martínez-Ramos,et al.  Influencia de la especialización del cirujano en los resultados tras cirugía por cáncer de colon: Utilidad de los índices de propensión (propensity scores) , 2008 .

[6]  Mitchell H Katz,et al.  Multivariable Analysis: A Primer for Readers of Medical Research , 2003, Annals of Internal Medicine.

[7]  ¿Influye en el proceso y en los resultados el volumen de procedimientos en la cirugía del cáncer? Análisis basado en datos clínico-administrativos , 2004 .

[8]  Eduardo Jaurrieta-Mas Concentración de procedimientos quirúrgicos en la cirugía oncológica , 2004 .

[9]  J. Ramírez-Rodríguez,et al.  Recidiva local en el cáncer de colon y recto , 2005 .

[10]  H. Putter,et al.  Impact of the introduction and training of total mesorectal excision on recurrence and survival in rectal cancer in The Netherlands , 2002, The British journal of surgery.

[11]  A Donabedian,et al.  Quality assessment and assurance: unity of purpose, diversity of means. , 1988, Inquiry : a journal of medical care organization, provision and financing.

[12]  W. Henderson,et al.  The Case Against Volume as a Measure of Quality of Surgical Care , 2005, World Journal of Surgery.

[13]  L. Rutqvist,et al.  Effect of a surgical training programme on outcome of rectal cancer in the County of Stockholm , 2000, The Lancet.

[14]  R. Dripps,et al.  The role of anesthesia in surgical mortality. , 1961, JAMA.

[15]  A. Shroyer,et al.  Why it is Important to Demonstrate Linkages Between Outcomes of Care and Processes and Structures of Care , 1995, Medical care.

[16]  Luis Grande Subespecialización y calidad asistencial en la cirugía de las resecciones hepáticas , 2005 .

[17]  C. McArdle,et al.  Primary treatment—does the surgeon matter? , 2000, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[18]  J. A. Escribano,et al.  Proyecto nacional para la gestión clínica de procesos asistenciales.Tratamiento quirúrgico del cáncer colorrectal. I. Aspectos generales , 2002 .

[19]  H. Luft,et al.  The volume-outcome relationship: practice-makes-perfect or selective-referral patterns? , 1987, Health services research.

[20]  P. Parrilla,et al.  Cuáles son los principales errores que cometemos los cirujanos en el tratamiento del cáncer de páncreas , 2006 .

[21]  R. Alós,et al.  Proceso docente auditado del tratamiento del cáncer de recto en España: resultados del primer año , 2007 .

[22]  M. Choti,et al.  Survival after gastric adenocarcinoma resection: Eighteen-year experience at a single institution , 2005, Journal of Gastrointestinal Surgery.

[23]  Jeremy L. Ward,et al.  Mortality and morbidity in gastro-oesophageal cancer surgery: initial results of ASCOT multicentre prospective cohort study , 2003, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[24]  B. Jennett,et al.  Assessment and prognosis of coma after head injury , 2005, Acta Neurochirurgica.

[25]  I. Duarte,et al.  Results of Surgical Treatment of Gastric Cancer , 1999, Digestive Surgery.

[26]  Estándares de calidad e instrumentación necesaria en la cirugía del cáncer de recto bajo , 2003 .