Is It Time to Centralize High-risk Cancer Care in the United States? Comparison of Outcomes of Esophagectomy Between England and the United States

Munasinghe, Aruna; Markar, Sheraz R.; Mamidanna, Ravikrishna; Darzi, Ara; Faiz, Omar; Hanna, George B.; Low, Donald E.

doi:10.1097/sla.0000000000000805

Cited by 94 publications

(61 citation statements)

References 24 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Compared to these studies, our 30‐day mortality rate was only 0.8%, which is less than half that of the 2.1% rate seen in other high volume centers from the NIS, <4.2% 30‐day mortality rate in the National Cancer Database, and <3.3% mortality rate after minimally invasive esophagectomy in the Society of Thoracic Surgeons National Database . It is well recognized that mortality rates continue to rise between 30‐ and 90‐days post‐esophagectomy, though most studies do not report 90‐day mortality rates.…”

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 72%

Hybrid minimally invasive Ivor Lewis esophagectomy after neoadjuvant chemoradiation yields excellent long-term survival outcomes with minimal morbidity

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The hybrid minimally invasive Ivor Lewis esophagectomy approach results in low perioperative morbidity and mortality and is well tolerated after neoadjuvant chemoradiation. Good long-term overall survival rates likely resulted from combined concurrent neoadjuvant chemoradiation in the majority of patients, which did not impact the ability to safely perform the operation or postoperative complications rates. J. Surg. Oncol. 2016;114:838-847. © 2016 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

show abstract

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 72%

Hybrid minimally invasive Ivor Lewis esophagectomy after neoadjuvant chemoradiation yields excellent long-term survival outcomes with minimal morbidity

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In light of the persistent association between improved surgical oncology outcomes and higher‐volume experience, the centralization of high‐risk cancer surgery has been proposed . Our results demonstrate that a volume‐outcome relationship exists for RPS.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 61%

Predictors of surgical quality for retroperitoneal sarcoma: Volume matters

Maurice

Yih

Ammori

et al. 2017

Journal of Surgical Oncology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Although some international comparative studies provided variations in mortality rate between countries, 10,11 these studies were under the restriction of the inherent differences in the data collection methods between the datasets. Also, these studies did not examine whether risk prediction models built for one population were accurate for the other population.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison of National Operative Mortality in Gastroenterological Surgery Using Web-based Prospective Data Entry Systems

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

International collaboration is important in healthcare quality evaluation; however, few international comparisons of general surgery outcomes have been accomplished. Furthermore, predictive model application for risk stratification has not been internationally evaluated. The National Clinical Database (NCD) in Japan was developed in collaboration with the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (ACS-NSQIP), with a goal of creating a standardized surgery database for quality improvement. The study aimed to compare the consistency and impact of risk factors of 3 major gastroenterological surgical procedures in Japan and the United States (US) using web-based prospective data entry systems: right hemicolectomy (RH), low anterior resection (LAR), and pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD).Data from NCD and ACS-NSQIP, collected over 2 years, were examined. Logistic regression models were used for predicting 30-day mortality for both countries. Models were exchanged and evaluated to determine whether the models built for one population were accurate for the other population.We obtained data for 113,980 patients; 50,501 (Japan: 34,638; US: 15,863), 42,770 (Japan: 35,445; US: 7325), and 20,709 (Japan: 15,527; US: 5182) underwent RH, LAR, and, PD, respectively. Thirty-day mortality rates for RH were 0.76% (Japan) and 1.88% (US); rates for LAR were 0.43% versus 1.08%; and rates for PD were 1.35% versus 2.57%. Patient background, comorbidities, and practice style were different between Japan and the US. In the models, the odds ratio for each variable was similar between NCD and ACS-NSQIP. Local risk models could predict mortality using local data, but could not accurately predict mortality using data from other countries.We demonstrated the feasibility and efficacy of the international collaborative research between Japan and the US, but found that local risk models remain essential for quality improvement.

show abstract

Is It Time to Centralize High-risk Cancer Care in the United States? Comparison of Outcomes of Esophagectomy Between England and the United States

Cited by 94 publications

References 24 publications

Hybrid minimally invasive Ivor Lewis esophagectomy after neoadjuvant chemoradiation yields excellent long-term survival outcomes with minimal morbidity

Hybrid minimally invasive Ivor Lewis esophagectomy after neoadjuvant chemoradiation yields excellent long-term survival outcomes with minimal morbidity

Predictors of surgical quality for retroperitoneal sarcoma: Volume matters

Comparison of National Operative Mortality in Gastroenterological Surgery Using Web-based Prospective Data Entry Systems

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About