Hillner B E, Smith T J, Desch C E
Massey Cancer Center and Department of Internal Medicine, Medical College of Virginia at Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, VA 23298-0170, USA.
J Clin Oncol. 2000 Jun;18(11):2327-40. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2000.18.11.2327.
To conduct a comprehensive review of the health services literature to search for evidence that hospital or physician volume or specialty affects the outcome of cancer care.
We reviewed the 1988 to 1999 MEDLINE literature that considered the hypothesis that higher volume or specialization equals better outcome in processes or outcomes of cancer treatments.
An extensive, consistent literature that supported a volume-outcome relationship was found for cancers treated with technologically complex surgical procedures, eg, most intra-abdominal and lung cancers. These studies predominantly measured in-hospital or 30-day mortality and used the hospital as the unit of analysis. For cancer primarily treated with low-risk surgery, there were fewer studies. An association with hospital and surgeon volume in colon cancer varied with the volume threshold. For breast cancer, British studies found that physician specialty and volume were associated with improved long-term outcomes, and the single American report showed an association between hospital volume of initial surgery and better 5-year survival. Studies of nonsurgical cancers, principally lymphomas and testicular cancer, were few but consistently showed better long-term outcomes associated with larger hospital volume or specialty focus. Studies in recurrent or metastatic cancer were absent. Across studies, the absolute benefit from care at high-volume centers exceeds the benefit from break-through treatments.
Although these reports are all retrospective, rely on registries with dated data, rarely have predefined hypotheses, and may have publication and self-interest biases, most support a positive volume-outcome relationship in initial cancer treatment. Given the public fear of cancer, its well-defined first identification, and the tumor-node-metastasis taxonomy, actual cancer care should and can be prospectively measured, assessed, and benchmarked. The literature suggests that, for all forms of cancer, efforts to concentrate its initial care would be appropriate.
对卫生服务文献进行全面综述,以寻找医院或医生数量或专业影响癌症治疗结果的证据。
我们回顾了1988年至1999年的MEDLINE文献,这些文献探讨了高数量或专业化等同于癌症治疗过程或结果更好这一假设。
对于采用技术复杂的外科手术治疗的癌症,例如大多数腹内和肺癌,发现了大量一致的文献支持数量与结果之间的关系。这些研究主要测量住院期间或30天死亡率,并将医院作为分析单位。对于主要采用低风险手术治疗的癌症,研究较少。结肠癌中与医院和外科医生数量的关联因数量阈值而异。对于乳腺癌,英国的研究发现医生专业和数量与改善的长期结果相关,而美国的唯一一份报告显示初次手术的医院数量与更好的5年生存率之间存在关联。对非手术癌症(主要是淋巴瘤和睾丸癌)的研究很少,但一致表明与更大的医院规模或专业重点相关联的长期结果更好。缺乏对复发性或转移性癌症的研究。在各项研究中,高容量中心治疗的绝对益处超过了突破性治疗的益处。
尽管这些报告均为回顾性研究,依赖于带有过时数据的登记处,很少有预定义的假设,并且可能存在发表和自身利益偏差,但大多数研究支持在初始癌症治疗中数量与结果呈正相关。鉴于公众对癌症的恐惧、其明确的首次识别以及肿瘤-淋巴结-转移分类法,实际的癌症治疗应该并且可以进行前瞻性测量、评估和设定基准。文献表明,对于所有形式的癌症,集中其初始治疗的努力是合适的。