Reiner Anne S, Mishra Meza Akriti, Panageas Katherine S, Moss Nelson S
Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York, USA.
Department of Neurosurgery, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York, USA.
Cancer Med. 2025 Apr;14(8):e70866. doi: 10.1002/cam4.70866.
We examined the association between academic center status and neurosurgical resection volume with surgical procedures performed and subsequent survival.
In a population-based study using the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)-Medicare-linked databases, we identified patients > 65 years diagnosed with primary WHO grade III-IV glioma from 2008 to 2017. Surgical procedures were identified through Medicare claims from 2007 to 2019. Associations between center type (academic vs. not) and center volume (top 10% of distribution of resections during the study period vs. the bottom 90%) were estimated with upfront surgery procedure (resection vs. biopsy vs. none) and survival by estimating hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) from multivariable regression models accounting for within-center provider cluster correlation.
We identified 8592 patients, of whom 8128 could both be attributed to a provider and received neurosurgical intervention attributed to resection or biopsy. When considered together, center volume, not center academic status, drove surgical decisions for first procedure type such that patients treated by a top 10% volume center were 23% more likely to receive resection (95% CI: 14%-34%, p < 0.0001). When considered together, resection, not center volume, drove improvement in overall survival such that patients who received resection, regardless of center volume, were 22% less likely to die during the study period (95% CI: 17%-27%, p < 0.0001).
We provide the first population-based evidence that older patients diagnosed with grade III-IV glioma who seek treatment from higher-volume centers are more likely to receive aggressive neurosurgical care. Aggressive neurosurgical care, even if received from low-volume centers, improves survival.
我们研究了学术中心地位和神经外科手术切除量与所实施的手术操作及后续生存率之间的关联。
在一项基于人群的研究中,我们使用监测、流行病学和最终结果(SEER)与医疗保险关联数据库,确定了2008年至2017年期间年龄大于65岁、被诊断为世界卫生组织III-IV级原发性胶质瘤的患者。通过2007年至2019年的医疗保险理赔记录确定手术操作。通过多变量回归模型估计中心类型(学术型与非学术型)和中心手术量(研究期间切除量分布的前10%与后90%)与初始手术操作(切除、活检或无手术)及生存率之间的关联,该模型考虑了中心内医疗服务提供者群体的相关性,并计算风险比(HRs)和95%置信区间(CIs)。
我们确定了8592例患者,其中8128例既可以归因于某一医疗服务提供者,又接受了归因于切除或活检的神经外科干预。综合考虑时,中心手术量而非中心学术地位驱动了首次手术类型的决策,因此接受手术量排名前10%中心治疗的患者接受切除手术的可能性要高23%(95%CI:14%-34%,p<0.0001)。综合考虑时,手术切除而非中心手术量推动了总体生存率的提高,因此接受手术切除的患者,无论中心手术量如何,在研究期间死亡的可能性要低22%(95%CI:17%-27%,p<0.0001)。
我们提供了首个基于人群的证据,表明被诊断为III-IV级胶质瘤的老年患者,从手术量较大的中心寻求治疗时更有可能接受积极的神经外科治疗。积极的神经外科治疗,即使是在手术量较小的中心接受的,也能提高生存率。