We have located links that may give you full text access.
Comparative Study
Journal Article
Mortality differences by surgical volume among patients with stomach cancer: a threshold for a favorable volume-outcome relationship.
World Journal of Surgical Oncology 2017 July 18
BACKGROUND: Many studies have assessed the volume-outcome relationship in cancer patients, but most focused on better outcomes in higher volume groups rather than identifying a specific threshold that could assist in clinical decision-making for achieving the best outcomes. The current study suggests an optimal volume for achieving good outcome, as an extension of previous studies on the volume-outcome relationship in stomach cancer patients.
METHODS: We used National Health Insurance Service (NHIS) Sampling Cohort data during 2004-2013, comprising healthcare claims for 2550 patients with newly diagnosed stomach cancer. We conducted survival analyses adopting the Cox proportional hazard model to investigate the association of three threshold values for surgical volume of stomach cancer patients for cancer-specific mortality using the Youden index.
RESULTS: Overall, 17.10% of patients died due to cancer during the study period. The risk of mortality among patients who received surgical treatment gradually decreased with increasing surgical volume at the hospital, while the risk of mortality increased again in "high" surgical volume hospitals, resulting in a j-shaped curve (mid-low = hazard ratio (HR) 0.773, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.608-0.983; mid-high = HR 0.541, 95% CI 0.372-0.788; high = HR 0.659, 95% CI 0.473-0.917; ref = low). These associations were especially significant in regions with unsubstantial surgical volumes and less severe cases.
CONCLUSION: The optimal surgical volume threshold was about 727.3 surgical cases for stomach cancer per hospital over the 1-year study period in South Korea. However, such positive effects decreased after exceeding a certain volume of surgeries.
METHODS: We used National Health Insurance Service (NHIS) Sampling Cohort data during 2004-2013, comprising healthcare claims for 2550 patients with newly diagnosed stomach cancer. We conducted survival analyses adopting the Cox proportional hazard model to investigate the association of three threshold values for surgical volume of stomach cancer patients for cancer-specific mortality using the Youden index.
RESULTS: Overall, 17.10% of patients died due to cancer during the study period. The risk of mortality among patients who received surgical treatment gradually decreased with increasing surgical volume at the hospital, while the risk of mortality increased again in "high" surgical volume hospitals, resulting in a j-shaped curve (mid-low = hazard ratio (HR) 0.773, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.608-0.983; mid-high = HR 0.541, 95% CI 0.372-0.788; high = HR 0.659, 95% CI 0.473-0.917; ref = low). These associations were especially significant in regions with unsubstantial surgical volumes and less severe cases.
CONCLUSION: The optimal surgical volume threshold was about 727.3 surgical cases for stomach cancer per hospital over the 1-year study period in South Korea. However, such positive effects decreased after exceeding a certain volume of surgeries.
Full text links
Related Resources
Trending Papers
Challenges in Septic Shock: From New Hemodynamics to Blood Purification Therapies.Journal of Personalized Medicine 2024 Februrary 4
Molecular Targets of Novel Therapeutics for Diabetic Kidney Disease: A New Era of Nephroprotection.International Journal of Molecular Sciences 2024 April 4
The 'Ten Commandments' for the 2023 European Society of Cardiology guidelines for the management of endocarditis.European Heart Journal 2024 April 18
A Guide to the Use of Vasopressors and Inotropes for Patients in Shock.Journal of Intensive Care Medicine 2024 April 14
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app