Search

Background: Laparoscopic colectomy is considered the standard of care in colon cancer treatment when appropriate expertise is available. However, guidelines do not delineate what experience is required to implement this approach safely and effectively. This study aimed to establish a data-derived, hospital-level annual volume threshold for laparoscopic colectomy at which patient outcomes are optimized., Methods: This evaluation included 44,157 stage I to III adenocarcinoma patients aged ≥40 years who underwent laparoscopic colon resection between 2010 and 2015 within the National Cancer Database. The primary outcome was overall survival, with 30- and 90-day mortality, duration of stay, days to receipt of chemotherapy, and number of lymph nodes examined as secondary. Segmented logistic and Cox regression models were used to identify volume thresholds which optimized these outcomes., Results: In hospitals performing ≥30 laparoscopic colectomies per year there were incremental improvements in overall survival for each additional resection beyond 30. Hospitals performing ≥30 procedures/year demonstrated improved 30-day mortality (1.3% vs 1.7%, P < .001), 90-day mortality (2.3% vs 2.9%, P < .001), and overall survival (84.3% vs 82.3%, P < .001). Those hospitals performing <30 procedures/year had no significant benefit in overall survival. Thresholds were not identified for any other outcomes. Results were comparable in colon cancer patients with stage IV or multiple cancers., Conclusion: A high-volume hospital threshold of ≥30 cases/year for laparoscopic colectomies is associated with improved patient survival and outcomes. A minimum volume standard may help providers determine which approach is most suitable for their hospital's practice as open procedures may yield better oncologic results in low volume settings., (Copyright © 2021. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Background: A relationship between higher volume providers and improved outcomes has been suggested by some studies and has been used to construct guidelines for many diseases. For gastric cancer (GC), however, optimal volume cutoffs are not clear., Methods: A multidisciplinary expert panel of 16 physicians from 6 countries scored 120 scenarios regarding provider characteristics for gastric resections for GC. Appropriateness of scenarios was scored from 1 (highly inappropriate) to 9 (highly appropriate). Median appropriateness scores from 1 to 3 were considered inappropriate, 4 to 6 uncertain, and 7 to 9 appropriate. Agreement was reached when 12 of 16 panelists scored the statement similarly. Appropriate scenarios agreed on were scored subsequently for necessity., Results: Surgeon and hospital practice volume scenarios were evaluated. The panel felt it was inappropriate for surgeons doing ≤2 GC cases per year to perform a multivisceral resection (MVR), D2 lymphadenectomy (D2-LND), or laparoscopic total gastrectomy, and ≤6 GC cases per year for an MVR involving a pancreatoduodenectomy (MVR-PD), or endoscopic mucosal resections (EMR). It was considered appropriate for surgeons doing ≥11 GC cases per year to perform open gastrectomy or D2-LND, and ≥20 GC cases per year for any MVR, laparoscopic gastrectomy, or EMR. For hospitals, it was considered inappropriate for hospitals managing ≤4 GC cases per year to perform D2-LND or laparoscopic total gastrectomy, and ≤10 GC cases per year, for MVR-PD or EMR. Hospital volumes ≥21 cases per year was considered appropriate for any GC procedure. It was inappropriate for an MVR to be performed in a hospital without interventional radiology services and for a MVR-PD in a hospital with no level I intensive care unit., Conclusion: Appropriate and inappropriate provider volumes for a variety of gastric procedures have been defined by an international expert panel., (Copyright © 2013 Mosby, Inc. All rights reserved.)