Geerts Julie F M, Vissers Pauline A J, Mostert Bianca, Wijnhoven Bas P L, Haberkorn Brigitte C M, Anten Marie-Paule G F, Rosman Camiel, Creemers Geert-Jan, Westdorp Harm, van der Sangen Maurice J C, Verhoeven Rob H A, Nieuwenhuijzen Grard A P
Department of Surgery, Catharina Hospital, Eindhoven, The Netherlands.
Department of Surgery, Erasmus Medical Centre, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Int J Cancer. 2025 Oct 1;157(7):1446-1457. doi: 10.1002/ijc.35491. Epub 2025 Jun 5.
Care for metastatic esophageal (EC) or gastric cancer (GC) includes a large variety of treatment modalities. Data on treatment variation across centers are unknown. This study investigated treatment variation across hospitals and its effect on overall survival (OS) in the Netherlands by conducting a nationwide retrospective cohort study with population-based data from the Netherlands Cancer Registry. Patients diagnosed with synchronous metastatic EC/GC between 2015 and 2022 were included. Multilevel logistic regression assessed treatment patterns according to hospital of diagnosis. OS was analyzed using Cox regression analysis after categorizing hospitals into tertiles based on their adjusted odds (low/medium/high) for systemic treatment (chemotherapy, targeted therapy, and immunotherapy). Among 8406 EC and 3871 GC patients, the proportion receiving systemic treatment varied substantially: 19.8%-69.6% for EC and 15.8%-81.3% for GC across hospitals. Hospital of diagnosis was significantly associated with the adjusted probability of receiving systemic treatment (p < .0001). Ten out of 78 EC (12.8%) and 7 out of 73 (9.6%) GC hospitals had significantly lower systemic treatment probabilities. EC patients with OS ≥4 months diagnosed at hospitals with lower probabilities had significantly worse OS compared to high-probability hospitals (hazard ratios [HR] 0.87 [0.79-0.95] p = .002). GC patients from low-probability hospitals had significantly worse OS than from medium- (HR 0.86 [0.76-0.96], p = .011) or high-probability hospitals (HR 0.73 [0.64-0.82], p < .0001). In conclusion, this study showed substantial hospital variation in treatment for metastatic EC and GC. Hospital of diagnosis was not only associated with the probability of receiving systemic treatment but also OS. This reflects the challenge of ensuring equal healthcare access.
转移性食管癌(EC)或胃癌(GC)的治疗包括多种治疗方式。各中心治疗差异的数据尚不清楚。本研究通过对荷兰癌症登记处基于人群的数据进行全国性回顾性队列研究,调查了荷兰各医院之间的治疗差异及其对总生存期(OS)的影响。纳入了2015年至2022年间诊断为同步转移性EC/GC的患者。多水平逻辑回归根据诊断医院评估治疗模式。在根据医院进行全身治疗(化疗、靶向治疗和免疫治疗)的调整优势(低/中/高)将医院分为三分位数后,使用Cox回归分析对OS进行分析。在8406例EC患者和3871例GC患者中,接受全身治疗的比例差异很大:各医院中EC患者的比例为19.8%-69.6%,GC患者为15.8%-81.3%。诊断医院与接受全身治疗的调整概率显著相关(p < 0.0001)。78家EC医院中有10家(12.8%)和73家GC医院中有7家(9.6%)的全身治疗概率显著较低。与高概率医院相比,在低概率医院诊断出的OS≥4个月的EC患者的OS明显更差(风险比[HR]0.87[0.79-0.95],p = 0.002)。来自低概率医院的GC患者的OS明显比来自中概率医院(HR 0.86[0.76-0.96],p = 0.011)或高概率医院(HR 0.73[0.64-0.82],p < 0.0001)的患者更差。总之,本研究表明转移性EC和GC的治疗在医院之间存在很大差异。诊断医院不仅与接受全身治疗的概率相关,还与OS相关。这反映了确保平等医疗服务可及性的挑战。