Survival, mortality and morbidity outcomes after oesophagogastric cancer surgery in New South Wales, 2001–2008

Smith, Ross C.; Creighton, Nicola; Lord, Reginald V.; Merrett, Neil D.; Keogh, G.; Liauw, Winston; Currow, David C.

doi:10.5694/mja13.11182

Cited by 44 publications

(68 citation statements)

References 20 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…However, several studies could not show a positive relationship between hospital volume and long‐term outcomes 22, 24, 32, 37, 38. One of these negative studies suggested that this is because long‐term outcomes are affected by two different dimensions of expertise: surgical technical skill and diagnostic ability 32.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Are treatment outcomes in gastric cancer associated with either hospital volume or surgeon volume?

Mukai

Kurokawa

Takiguchi

et al. 2017

Annals of Gastroent Surgery

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Surgical resection is the only curative treatment for gastric cancer. Postoperative outcomes may be affected by the average or total number of surgeries carried out at an institution (hospital volume) or by a surgeon (surgeon volume). Among seven large‐scale studies that each enrolled over 10 000 patients who underwent gastrectomy, six showed that higher hospital volume contributed to a lower mortality rate after gastrectomy. Surgeon volume was also reported by three of four studies that each included over 1000 patients to be a significant factor contributing to heterogeneity in mortality rates after gastrectomy. In contrast, most studies showed no relationship between hospital volume and postoperative morbidity. A significant long‐term relationship was demonstrated in four of nine studies that each included more than 1000 patients, but the other five studies showed negative results. A recent correlative study of randomized phase III trials for gastric cancer surgeries showed a significant relationship between hospital volume and postoperative morbidity in one trial but not in another trial. There was no correlation between overall survival and either hospital or surgeon volume. In addition, another correlative study of a phase III trial of randomized chemotherapy for unresectable or recurrent gastric cancer found that there was no correlation between hospital volume and overall survival, although there was a large degree of heterogeneity in median overall survival among participating institutions.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Are treatment outcomes in gastric cancer associated with either hospital volume or surgeon volume?

Mukai

Kurokawa

Takiguchi

et al. 2017

Annals of Gastroent Surgery

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Surgery remains the main treatment modality for resectable carcinoma of the esophagus (3). However, esophagectomy for esophageal cancer is a complex procedure which carries high risk of morbidity rate of 24% (4) and a mortality rate of 2% to 5.6%, respectively (4)(5)(6)(7)(8).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The value of esophagectomy surgical apgar score (eSAS) in predicting the risk of major morbidity after open esophagectomy

Xing¹,

Wang²,

Qu³

et al. 2016

J. Thorac. Dis.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Linked NSW hospital and death data are commonly used to monitor surgical resection rates and associated mortality rates. [36][37][38] The validity of these data needs to be checked when service agencies use them to monitor service performance. This validation process is illustrated with pancreatic cancer data.…”

Section: Increasing Timeliness Of Service Monitoringmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…41 Registry data linkage with administrative data enables assessment of patterns of care and other performance indicators for health-system monitoring. [36][37][38][39][40] Administrative data may lack the quality of customised registry data, but they complement the registry data and are adequate for showing broad populationwide patterns of care. 34,[36][37][38] Clinical registries may be used to validate linked administrative data in instances where these data cover common patient groups.…”

Section: Emerging Rolesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…[36][37][38][39][40] Addition of tumour/node/metastases (TNM) cancer stage and other prognostic indicators to registry databases is important for these analyses and is facilitated by the increased use of structured pathology reporting advocated by the Royal College of Pathologists of Australasia. 41 Registry data linkage with administrative data enables assessment of patterns of care and other performance indicators for health-system monitoring.…”

Section: Emerging Rolesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Changing roles of population-based cancer registries in Australia

Roder

Creighton

Baker

et al. 2015

Aust. Health Review

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract.Registries have key roles in cancer incidence, mortality and survival monitoring and in showing disparities across the population. Incidence monitoring began in New South Wales in 1972 and other jurisdictions soon followed. Registry data are used to evaluate outcomes of preventive, screening, treatment and support services. They have shown decreases in cancer incidence following interventions and have been used for workforce and other infrastructure planning. Crude markers of optimal radiotherapy and chemotherapy exist and registry data are used to show shortfalls against these markers. The data are also used to investigate cancer clusters and environmental concerns. Survival data are used to assess service performance and interval cancer data are used in screening accreditation. Registries enable determination of risk of multiple primary cancers. Clinical quality registries are used for clinical quality improvement. Population-based cancer registries and linked administrative data complement clinical registries by providing high-level system-wide data. The USA Commission on Cancer has long used registries for quality assurance and service accreditation. Increasingly population-based registry data in Australia are linked with administrative data on service delivery to assess system performance. Addition of tumour stage and other prognostic indicators is important for these analyses and is facilitated by the roll-out of structured pathology reporting. Data linkage with administrative data, following checks on the quality of these data, enables assessment of patterns of care and other performance indicators for health-system monitoring. Australian cancer registries have evolved and increasingly are contributing to broader information networks for health system management. Traditional rolesCancer registries perform a fundamentally important role in monitoring incidence, mortality and survival by cancer type across the population and show sociodemographic disparities.

show abstract

Survival, mortality and morbidity outcomes after oesophagogastric cancer surgery in New South Wales, 2001–2008

Abstract: These data support initial surgery for oesophagogastric cancer in higher-volume hospitals.

Cited by 44 publications

References 20 publications

Are treatment outcomes in gastric cancer associated with either hospital volume or surgeon volume?

Are treatment outcomes in gastric cancer associated with either hospital volume or surgeon volume?

The value of esophagectomy surgical apgar score (eSAS) in predicting the risk of major morbidity after open esophagectomy

Changing roles of population-based cancer registries in Australia

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About