Search

Objective  The center of excellence model of health care hypothesizes that increased volume in a specialized center will lead to better and more affordable care. We sought to characterize the volume-outcome data for surgically treated sinonasal and skull base tumors and (chemo) radiation-treated nasopharyngeal malignancy. Design   Systematic review of the literature. Setting  This review included national database and multi-institutional studies published between 1990 and 2019. Participants  PubMed was interrogated for keywords "hospital volume," "facility volume," and outcomes for "Nasopharyngeal carcinoma," "Sinonasal carcinomas," "Pituitary Tumors," "Acoustic Neuromas," "Chordomas," and "Skull Base Tumors" to identify studies. Single-institution studies and self-reported surveys were excluded. Main outcome measures  The main outcome of interest in malignant pathologies was survival; and in benign pathologies it was treatment-related complications. Results  A total of 20 studies met inclusion criteria. The average number of patients per study was 4,052, and ranged from 394 to 9,950 patients. Six of seven studies on malignant pathology demonstrated improved survival with treatment in high volume centers and one showed no association with survival. Ten of thirteen studies on benign disease showed reduced risk of complications, while one study demonstrated both an increased and decreased association of complications. Two studies showed no volume-outcome associations. Conclusion  This systematic review demonstrates that a positive volume–outcome relationship exists for most pathologies of the skull base, with some exceptions. The relative dearth of literature supports further research to understand the effect of centralization of care on treatment outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

[Display omitted] [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract Background Guidelines recommend treatment of retroperitoneal sarcomas (RPS) at high-volume centers. However, high-volume centers may not be accessible locally. This national study compared outcomes of RPS resection between local low-volume centers and more distant high-volume centers. Methods Patients treated for RPS were identified from the National Cancer Database (1998–2012). Travel distance and annual hospital volume were divided into quartiles. Two groups were identified: (1) short travel to low-volume hospitals (ST/LV), (2) long travel to high-volume hospitals (LT/HV). Outcomes were adjusted for clinical, tumor, and treatment characteristics. Results Two thousand five hundred ninety-nine patients met the inclusion criteria. The LT/HV cohort was younger and more often white (p

The positive relationship between volume and outcome in hepatobiliary surgery has been demonstrated for many years. As for other complex surgical procedures, both improved short- and long-term outcomes have been associated with a higher volume of procedures. However, whether the centralization of complex hepatobiliary procedures makes full sense because it should be associated with higher quality of care, as reported in the literature, precise criteria on what to centralize, where to centralize, and who should be entitled to perform complex procedures are still missing. Indeed, despite the generalized consensus on centralization in hepatobiliary surgery, this topic remains very complex because many determinants are involved in such a centralization process, of which some of them cannot be easily controlled. In the context of different health systems worldwide, such as national health systems and private insurance, there are different stakeholders that demand different needs: politicians, patients, surgeons, institutions and medical associations do not always have the same needs. Starting from a review of the literature on centralization in hepatobiliary surgery, we will propose some guidelines that, while not data-driven due to low evidence in the literature, will be based on good clinical practice., (2020, National Center for Global Health and Medicine.)

Background: Guidelines recommend treatment of retroperitoneal sarcomas (RPS) at high-volume centers. However, high-volume centers may not be accessible locally. This national study compared outcomes of RPS resection between local low-volume centers and more distant high-volume centers. Methods: Patients treated for RPS were identified from the National Cancer Database (1998–2012). Travel distance and annual hospital volume were divided into quartiles. Two groups were identified: (1) short travel to low-volume hospitals (ST/LV), (2) long travel to high-volume hospitals (LT/HV). Outcomes were adjusted for clinical, tumor, and treatment characteristics. Results: Two thousand five hundred ninety-nine patients met the inclusion criteria. The LT/HV cohort was younger and more often white (p < 0.01). The LT/HV group had more comorbidities, higher tumor grade, and more often radical resections and radiotherapy (all p < 0.05). The ST/LV group underwent significantly more R2 resections (4.4% vs. 2.6%, p = 0.003). Thirty-day mortality was significantly lower in the LT/HV group (1.2% vs. 2.8%, p = 0.0026). Five-year survival was better among the LT/HV group (63% vs. 53%, p < 0.0001). After adjustment, the LT/HV group had a 27% improvement in overall survival (HR 0.73, p = 0.0009). Conclusions: This national study suggests that traveling to high-volume centers for the treatment of RPS confers a significant short-term and long-term survival advantage, supporting centralized care for RPS. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]