Gynecology Service, Department of Surgery, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA.
Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons, New York, NY, USA.
Gynecol Oncol. 2020 May;157(2):508-513. doi: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2020.02.029. Epub 2020 Feb 21.
To determine whether process and outcome measures varied for patients with early-stage cervical cancer based on hospital surgical volume.
Using the National Cancer Database, we identified women with stages IA2 - IB1 cervical cancer (2011-2013). Annual hospital volume was calculated using number of hysterectomies performed in the prior year and grouped into patient level-quartiles. Centers in the highest quartile of volume were defined as HVCs; those in the lowest quartile, as LVCs. Demographics, type/mode of hysterectomy, lymph node assessment, NCCN-compliant surgery (radical hysterectomy (RH) with LND), and survival outcomes were compared across quartiles of hospital volume. Cox Proportional Hazards model was performed to determine impact of volume on mortality.
We identified 3469 women treated at 598 different hospitals. RH was more likely at HVCs versus LVCs (68.9% vs. 59.6%, p < 0.001). LND was more likely at HVCs versus LVCs (96.1% vs 87.3%, p < 0.001). Patients treated at HVCs were 11.4% more likely to receive guideline-compliant surgery compared to LVCs (67.8% vs. 56.4%, p < 0.001). There was no difference in 5-year survival, 90-day survival, all-cause mortality across volume quartiles. Thirty-day mortality was significantly lower at HVCs (0 deaths in 880 patients) versus LVCs (1 in 1058 (0.1%, p = 0.02)). Age ≥ 80, Medicaid and Medicare insurance, Hispanic race, and poorly differentiated histology were independent predictors of mortality. Hospital volume was not found to be an independent predictor of mortality (p = 0.95).
HVCs demonstrated higher rates of NCCN-recommended surgery for early-stage cervical cancer. There was no association between hospital volume and survival.
确定基于医院手术量,早期宫颈癌患者的过程和结果测量是否存在差异。
使用国家癌症数据库,我们确定了 2011-2013 年患有 IA2-IB1 期宫颈癌的女性。使用前一年进行的子宫切除术数量计算年度医院量,并将其分为患者水平四分位数。手术量最高四分位数的中心定义为 HVC;手术量最低四分位数的中心定义为 LVC。比较四分位数的医院量在人口统计学、子宫切除术的类型/方式、淋巴结评估、符合 NCCN 的手术(广泛性子宫切除术 (RH) 伴淋巴结清扫术)和生存结果方面的差异。使用 Cox 比例风险模型确定体积对死亡率的影响。
我们确定了在 598 家不同医院接受治疗的 3469 名女性。与 LVC 相比,HVC 更有可能进行 RH(68.9% 对 59.6%,p<0.001)。与 LVC 相比,HVC 更有可能进行 LND(96.1% 对 87.3%,p<0.001)。与 LVC 相比,HVC 治疗的患者接受指南相符手术的可能性高 11.4%(67.8% 对 56.4%,p<0.001)。在四个体积四分位数之间,5 年生存率、90 天生存率、全因死亡率均无差异。HVC(在 880 名患者中无死亡)与 LVC(在 1058 名患者中有 1 例死亡(0.1%,p=0.02))相比,30 天死亡率显著降低。年龄≥80 岁、医疗补助和医疗保险、西班牙裔种族和低分化组织学是死亡率的独立预测因素。未发现医院量是死亡率的独立预测因素(p=0.95)。
HVC 对早期宫颈癌进行 NCCN 推荐的手术率较高。医院量与生存之间没有关联。