Dataset Information

Survival After Cancer Treatment at Top-Ranked US Cancer Hospitals vs Affiliates of Top-Ranked Cancer Hospitals.

ABSTRACT: Importance:Hospital networks formed around top-ranked cancer hospitals represent an opportunity to optimize complex cancer care in the community. Objective:To compare the short- and long-term survival after complex cancer treatment at top-ranked cancer hospitals and the affiliates of top-ranked hospitals. Design, Setting, and Participants:This cohort study was conducted using data from the unabridged version of the National Cancer Database. Included patients were individuals 18 years or older who underwent surgical treatment for esophageal, gastric, lung, pancreatic, colorectal, or bladder cancer diagnosed between January 1, 2012, and December 31, 2016. Patient outcomes after complex surgical procedures for cancer at top-ranked cancer hospitals (as ranked in top 50 by US News and World Report) were compared with outcomes at affiliates of top-ranked cancer hospitals (affiliation listed in American Hospitals Association survey and confirmed by search of internet presence). Data were analyzed from July through December 2019. Exposures:Undergoing complex cancer treatment at a top-ranked cancer hospital or an affiliated hospital. Main Outcomes and Measures:The association of affiliate status with short-term survival (ie, 90-day mortality) was compared using logistic regression, and the association of affiliate status with long-term survival was compared using time-to-event models, adjusting for patient demographic, payer, clinical, and treatment factors. Results:Among 119?834 patients who underwent surgical treatment for cancer, 79?981 patients (66.7%) were treated at top-ranked cancer hospitals (median [interquartile range] age, 66 [58-74] years; 40?910 [54.9%] men) and 39?853 patients (33.3%) were treated at affiliate hospitals (median [interquartile range] age, 69 [60-77] years; 19?004 [50.0%] men). In a pooled analysis of all cancer types, adjusted perioperative mortality within 90 days of surgical treatment was higher at affiliate hospitals compared with top-ranked hospitals (odds ratio, 1.67 [95% CI, 1.49-1.89]; P?

SUBMITTER: Boffa DJ

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7251445 | biostudies-literature | 2020 May

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Survival After Cancer Treatment at Top-Ranked US Cancer Hospitals vs Affiliates of Top-Ranked Cancer Hospitals.

Boffa Daniel J DJ Mallin Katherine K Herrin Jeph J Resio Benjamin B Salazar Michelle C MC Palis Bryan B Facktor Matthew M McCabe Ryan R Nelson Heidi H Shulman Lawrence N LN

JAMA network open 20200501 5

<h4>Importance</h4>Hospital networks formed around top-ranked cancer hospitals represent an opportunity to optimize complex cancer care in the community.<h4>Objective</h4>To compare the short- and long-term survival after complex cancer treatment at top-ranked cancer hospitals and the affiliates of top-ranked hospitals.<h4>Design, setting, and participants</h4>This cohort study was conducted using data from the unabridged version of the National Cancer Database. Included patients were individual ...[more]

PMID: 32453382

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceLeading cancer hospitals have increasingly shared their brands with other hospitals through growing networks of affiliations. However, the brand of top-ranked cancer hospitals may evoke distinct reputations for safety and quality that do not extend to all hospitals within these networks.ObjectiveTo assess perioperative mortality of Medicare beneficiaries after complex cancer surgery across hospitals participating in networks with top-ranked cancer hospitals.Design, setting, and participantsA cross-sectional study was performed of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services 100% Medicare Provider and Analysis Review file from January 1, 2013, to December 31, 2016, for top-ranked cancer hospitals (as assessed by U.S. News and World Report) and affiliated hospitals that share their brand. Participants were 29 228 Medicare beneficiaries older than 65 years who underwent complex cancer surgery (lobectomy, esophagectomy, gastrectomy, colectomy, and pancreaticoduodenectomy [Whipple procedure]) between January 1, 2013, and October 1, 2016.ExposuresUndergoing complex cancer surgery at a top-ranked cancer hospital vs an affiliated hospital.Main outcomes and measuresRisk-adjusted 90-day mortality estimated using hierarchical logistic regression and comparison of the relative safety of hospitals within each cancer network estimated using standardized mortality ratios.ResultsA total of 17 300 patients (59.2%; 8612 women and 8688 men; mean [SD] age, 74.7 [6.2] years) underwent complex cancer surgery at 59 top-ranked hospitals and 11 928 patients (40.8%; 6287 women and 5641 men; mean [SD] age, 76.2 [6.9] years) underwent complex cancer surgery at 343 affiliated hospitals. Overall, surgery performed at affiliated hospitals was associated with higher 90-day mortality (odds ratio, 1.40; 95% CI, 1.23-1.59; P < .001), with odds ratios that ranged from 1.32 (95% CI, 1.12-1.56; P = .001) for colectomy to 2.04 (95% CI, 1.41-2.95; P < .001) for gastrectomy. When the relative safety of each top-ranked cancer hospital was compared with its collective affiliates, the top-ranked hospital was safer than the affiliates in 41 of 49 studied networks (83.7%; 95% CI, 73.1%-93.3%).Conclusions and relevanceThe likelihood of surviving complex cancer surgery appears to be greater at top-ranked cancer hospitals compared with the affiliated hospitals that share their brand. Further investigation of performance across trusted cancer networks could enhance informed decision making for complex cancer care.

Project description:BackgroundCancer is mostly a disease of aging, and older patients with cancer are generally frailer. This study aimed to describe the characteristics and in-hospital outcomes and explore factors associated with duration, cost, and mortality during first hospitalization, in older patients with cancer admitted to a top-ranked hospital in China.MethodsData on patients with solid cancer ≥65 years consecutively hospitalized in 2016-2020 were retrieved from the electronic medical records of Ruijin Hospital in Shanghai, China. Baseline characteristics, duration, cost, and mortality during hospitalization were described. Factors associated with duration, cost, and mortality during first hospitalization were explored using multivariable-adjusted logistic regression.Results20,650 eligible patients with male proportion of 59% and median age of 70 years were analyzed. 45% of the patients underwent resection in our hospital. Upon first admission, 49% of patients had hypertension, 19% diabetes, 22% weight loss, and 28% risks of malnutrition. The median duration and cost of first hospitalization were 9 days and 32,000 RMB, respectively. 118 (0.6%) and 228 (1.1%) deaths occurred during first and any hospitalization, respectively. For first hospitalization, longer duration and higher cost were positively associated with older ages, male gender, emergency admission, certain tumor locations and histology, histories of diabetes, cirrhosis, and anticoagulant intake, higher body mass index, weight loss, reduced food intake, risk of falling, and worse self-care ability; in-hospital mortality was positively associated with age ≥85 years, emergency admission, certain cancer types, histories of hypertension and psychotropic intake, reduced food intake, and worse self-care ability.ConclusionsThis study identified certain baseline patient and tumor characteristics, medical and medication histories, changes of weight and food intake, diet, and self-care ability which were independently associated with in-hospital outcomes among older patients with cancer admitted to our hospital and which should be paid special attention to. While the factors might not be easily modifiable, our study can help identify patients at higher risks of inferior in-hospital outcomes.

Project description:ImportanceTreatment-free survival (TFS) represents an alternative time-to-event end point, accurately characterizing time spent free of systemic therapy, providing a more patient-centric view of immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) therapy regimens. There remains a lack of studies evaluating TFS outcomes among patients with advanced melanoma who are receiving immunotherapy, especially outside of the clinical trial setting.ObjectiveTo evaluate TFS outcomes for patients with advanced melanoma receiving first-line ICI therapy outside of a clinical trial setting.Design, setting, and participantsThis multicenter cohort study of patients with advanced melanoma receiving first-line ICI therapy between August 1, 2013, and May 31, 2020, was conducted in Alberta, Canada. Data analysis was performed in August 2022.ExposuresPatients received standard-of-care, first-line ICI therapy treatment regimens including single-agent nivolumab, single-agent pembrolizumab, or ipilimumab-nivolumab.Main outcomes and measuresTreatment-free survival was defined as the difference in the 36-month restricted mean survival time between 2 conventional survival end points: (1) time from treatment initiation to ICI cessation, death, or censoring at last follow-up and (2) time from treatment initiation to subsequent systemic anticancer therapy, death, or censoring at last follow-up.ResultsA total of 316 patients with advanced melanoma receiving first-line nivolumab (n = 51; median age, 66 years [IQR, 56-78 years]; 31 men [60.8%]), pembrolizumab (n = 158; median age, 69 years [IQR, 60-78 years]; 112 men [70.9%]), or combination nivolumab-ipilimumab (n = 107; median age, 53 years [IQR, 42-60 years]; 72 men [67.3%]) were included. Treatment groups were similar with regard to sex, primary tumor location, and presence of metastasis, although patients receiving combination nivolumab-ipilimumab had a lower Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group status, were younger, and were more likely to be BRAF V600E positive than those receiving anti-programmed cell death protein 1 (anti-PD-1) monotherapy. The restricted mean TFS was longer for nivolumab-ipilimumab (12.4 months [95% CI, 8.8-16.0 months]) compared with nivolumab (8.9 months [95% CI, 4.4-13.5 months]) and pembrolizumab (11.1 months [95% CI, 8.5-13.8 months]). During the 36-month follow-up interval, patients treated with nivolumab-ipilimumab spent 34.4% of their time (12.4 of 36 months) not receiving systemic anticancer treatments compared with 30.8% (11.1 of 36 months) and 24.7% (8.9 of 36 months) of the time for the pembrolizumab and nivolumab treatment groups, respectively.Conclusions and relevanceThis cohort study of patients with advanced melanoma receiving first-line ICI therapy suggests that TFS represents a patient-centric, informative end point. Patients treated with combination nivolumab-ipilimumab spent more time alive and free from systemic anticancer therapy than those treated with anti-PD-1 monotherapy alone.

Dataset Information

Survival After Cancer Treatment at Top-Ranked US Cancer Hospitals vs Affiliates of Top-Ranked Cancer Hospitals.

Publications

Survival After Cancer Treatment at Top-Ranked US Cancer Hospitals vs Affiliates of Top-Ranked Cancer Hospitals.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets