Advertisement

Annals of Surgical Oncology

, Volume 26, Issue 12, pp 4091–4099 | Cite as

Facility Type is Associated with Margin Status and Overall Survival of Patients with Resected Intrahepatic Cholangiocarcinoma

  • Grace C. Lee
  • T. Clark Gamblin
  • Zhi Ven Fong
  • Cristina R. Ferrone
  • Lipika Goyal
  • Keith D. Lillemoe
  • Lawrence S. Blaszkowsky
  • Kenneth K. Tanabe
  • Motaz QadanEmail author
Hepatobiliary Tumors

Abstract

Background

Many studies have demonstrated associations between surgical resections at academic centers and improved outcomes, particularly for complex operations. However, few studies have examined this relationship in intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (ICC). The hypothesis of this study was that facility type is associated with improved postoperative outcomes and survival for patients with ICC who undergo resection.

Methods

Patients with stages 1 to 3 ICC who underwent hepatectomy were identified using the National Cancer Database (NCDB) (2004–2014). Facilities were categorized as academic or community centers per Commission on Cancer designations. High-volume hospitals were those that performed 11 or more hepatectomies per year. Multilevel logistic mixed-effects models to identify predictors of outcomes and parametric survival-time models were used to determine overall survival (OS).

Results

The study identified 2256 patients. Of these patients, 423 (18.8%) were treated at community centers, and 1833 (81.3%) were treated at academic centers. Nearly all high-volume centers were academic facilities (98.5% academic vs. 1.5% community centers), whereas low-volume centers were mixed (65.5% academic vs. 34.5% community centers) (p < 0.001). Surgery performed at an academic center was an independent predictor of decreased positive margins (odds ratio [OR], 0.71; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.51–0.98; p = 0.04), a lower 90-day mortality rate (OR, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.39–0.97; p = 0.03), and improved OS (hazard ratio [HR], 0.78; 95% CI, 0.63–0.96; p = 0.02). Facility hepatectomy volume was not independently associated with any short- or long-term outcomes.

Conclusions

Treatment at an academic center is associated with fewer positive resection margins, a decreased 90-day mortality rate, and improved OS for patients who undergo ICC resection. Facility surgical volume was not shown to be significantly associated with any postoperative outcomes after adjustment for patient and disease characteristics.

Notes

Acknowledgment

Dr. Grace C. Lee was supported by the National Institutes of Health T32 Research Training in Alimentary Tract Surgery Grant No. DK007754-13.

Funding

Funding was provided by National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (Grant number “DK007754-13 (T32 Research Training in Alimentary T”).

Disclosure

There are no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. 1.
    Chun YS, Javle M. Systemic and adjuvant therapies for intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma. Cancer Control. 2017;24:1073274817729241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Weber SM, Ribero D, O’Reilly EM, Kokudo N, Miyazaki M, Pawlik TM. Intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma: expert consensus statement. HPB Oxford. 2015;17:669–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bridgewater J, Galle PR, Khan SA, et al. Guidelines for the diagnosis and management of intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma. J Hepatol. 2014;60:1268–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Spolverato G, Vitale A, Cucchetti A, et al. Can hepatic resection provide a long-term cure for patients with intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma? Cancer. 2015;121:3998–4006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Birkmeyer JD, Siewers AE, Finlayson EV, et al. Hospital volume and surgical mortality in the United States. N Engl J Med. 2002;346:1128–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Idrees JJ, Merath K, Gani F, et al. Trends in centralization of surgical care and compliance with National Cancer Center Network guidelines for resected cholangiocarcinoma. HPB Oxford. 2018.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Finlayson SR. The volume-outcome debate revisited. Am Surg. 2006;72:1038–42.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Csikesz NG, Simons JP, Tseng JF, Shah SA. Surgical specialization and operative mortality in hepato-pancreatico-biliary (HPB) surgery. J Gastrointest Surg. 2008;12:1534–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Boffa DJ, Rosen JE, Mallin K, et al. Using the National Cancer Database for outcomes research: a review. JAMA Oncol. 2017;3:1722–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Deyo RA, Cherkin DC, Ciol MA. Adapting a clinical comorbidity index for use with ICD-9-CM administrative databases. J Clin Epidemiol. 1992;45:613–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Chu QD, Zhou M, Peddi P, Medeiros KL, Zibari GB, Shokouh-Amiri H, Wu XC. Influence of facility type on survival outcomes after pancreatectomy for pancreatic adenocarcinoma. HPB Oxford. 2017;19:1046–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Chapman BC, Paniccia A, Hosokawa PW, et al. Impact of facility type and surgical volume on 10-year survival in patients undergoing hepatic resection for hepatocellular carcinoma. J Am Coll Surg. 2017;224:362–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Berger NG, Silva JP, Mogal H, et al. Overall survival after resection of retroperitoneal sarcoma at academic cancer centers versus community cancer centers: an analysis of the National Cancer Data Base. Surgery. 2018;163:318–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Lee AJ, Chun YS. Intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma: the AJCC/UICC 8th edition updates. Chin Clin Oncol. 2018;7:52.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Merkow RP, Rademaker AW, Bilimoria KY. Practical guide to surgical data sets: National Cancer Database (NCDB). JAMA Surg. 2018;153:850–1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Ghaferi AA, Osborne NH, Birkmeyer JD, Dimick JB. Hospital characteristics associated with failure to rescue from complications after pancreatectomy. J Am Coll Surg. 2010;211:325–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Raval MV, Wang X, Cohen ME, et al. The influence of resident involvement on surgical outcomes. J Am Coll Surg. 2011;212:889–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Ejaz A, Spolverato G, Kim Y, et al. The impact of resident involvement on surgical outcomes among patients undergoing hepatic and pancreatic resections. Surgery. 2015;158:323–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Squires MH, Cloyd JM, Dillhoff M, Schmidt C, Pawlik TM. Challenges of surgical management of intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma. Expert Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2018;12:671–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Liu JH, Zingmond DS, McGory ML, SooHoo NF, Ettner SL, Brook RH, Ko CY. Disparities in the utilization of high-volume hospitals for complex surgery. JAMA. 2006;296:1973–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Mesman R, Faber MJ, Westert GP, Berden H. Dutch surgeons’ views on the volume-outcome mechanism in surgery: a qualitative interview study. Int J Qual Health Care. 2017;29:797–802.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Hyder O, Sachs T, Ejaz A, Spolverato G, Pawlik TM. Impact of hospital teaching status on length of stay and mortality among patients undergoing complex hepatopancreaticobiliary surgery in the USA. J Gastrointest Surg. 2013;17:2114–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Dimick JB, Cowan JA Jr, Colletti LM, Upchurch GR Jr. Hospital teaching status and outcomes of complex surgical procedures in the United States. Arch Surg. 2004;139:137–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Fong ZV, Loehrer AP, Fernandez-Del Castillo C, et al. Potential impact of a volume pledge on spatial access: a population-level analysis of patients undergoing pancreatectomy. Surgery. 2017;162:203–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Society of Surgical Oncology 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Grace C. Lee
    • 1
    • 2
  • T. Clark Gamblin
    • 3
  • Zhi Ven Fong
    • 1
    • 2
  • Cristina R. Ferrone
    • 1
    • 2
  • Lipika Goyal
    • 2
    • 4
  • Keith D. Lillemoe
    • 1
    • 2
  • Lawrence S. Blaszkowsky
    • 2
    • 4
  • Kenneth K. Tanabe
    • 1
    • 2
  • Motaz Qadan
    • 1
    • 2
    • 5
    Email author
  1. 1.Department of SurgeryMassachusetts General HospitalBostonUSA
  2. 2.Newton Wellesley HospitalNewtonUSA
  3. 3.Department of SurgeryMedical College of WisconsinMilwaukeeUSA
  4. 4.Division of Hematology/Oncology, Department of MedicineMassachusetts General HospitalBostonUSA
  5. 5.Surgical Oncology AssociatesMassachusetts General HospitalBostonUSA

Personalised recommendations