Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2022 Jun 1;275(6):e743-e751.
doi: 10.1097/SLA.0000000000004361. Epub 2020 Oct 14.

Are Volume Pledge Standards Worth the Travel Burden for Major Abdominal Cancer Operations?

Yun Song  1 , Adrienne B Shannon, Seth J Concors, Robert E Roses, Douglas L Fraker, Ronald P DeMatteo, Rachel R Kelz, Giorgos C Karakousis
Affiliations

Are Volume Pledge Standards Worth the Travel Burden for Major Abdominal Cancer Operations?

Yun Song et al. Ann Surg. .

Abstract

Objective: The study objective is to determine the association between travel distance and surgical volume on outcomes after esophageal, pancreatic, and rectal cancer resections.

Summary of background data: "Take the Volume Pledge" aims to centralize esophagectomies, pancreatectomies, and proctectomies to hospitals meeting minimum volume standards. The impact of travel, and possible care fragmentation, on potential benefits of centralized surgery is not well understood.

Methods: Using the National Cancer Database (2004-2016), patients who underwent esophageal, pancreatic, or rectal resections at far HVH meeting volume standards versus local intermediate (IVH) and low-volume (LVH) hospitals were identified. Perioperative outcomes and 5-year OS were compared.

Results: Of 49,454 patients, 17,544 (34.5%) underwent surgery at far HVH, 11,739 (23.7%) at local IVH, and 20,171 (40.8%) at local LVH. The median (interquartilerange) travel distances were 77.1 (51.1-125.4), 13.2 (5.8-27.3), and 7.8 (3.1-15.5) miles to HVH, IVH, and LVH, respectively. By multivariable analysis, LVH was associated with increased 30-day mortality for all resections compared to HVH, but IVH was associated with mortality only for proctectomies [odds ratio 1.90, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.31-2.75]. Compared to HVH, both IVH (hazard ratio 1.25, 95% CI 1.19-1.31) and LVH (hazard ratio 1.35, 95% CI 1.29-1.42) were associated with decreased 5-year OS.

Conclusions: Compared to far HVH, 30-day mortality was higher for all resections at LVH, but only for proctectomies at IVH. Five-year OS was consistently worse at local LVH and IVH. Improving long-term outcomes at IVH may provide opportunities for greater access to quality cancer care.

PubMed Disclaimer

References

    1. Urbach DR. Pledging to eliminate low-volume surgery. N Engl J Med 2015; 373:1388–1390.
    1. Begg CB, Cramer LD, Hoskins WJ, et al. Impact of hospital volume on operative mortality for major cancer surgery. JAMA 1998; 280:1747–1751.
    1. Birkmeyer JD, Siewers AE, Finlayson EVA, et al. Hospital volume and surgical mortality in the United States. NEngl JMed 2002; 346:1128–1137.
    1. Bentrem DJ, Brennan MF. Outcomes in oncologic surgery: does volume make a difference? World J Surg 2005; 29:1210–1216.
    1. Stitzenberg KB, Sigurdson ER, Egleston BL, et al. Centralization of cancer surgery: implications for patient access to optimal care. J Clin Oncol 2009; 27:4671–4678.