Surgeon Quality and Patient Survival after Resection for Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer

PURPOSEThe quality and outcomes of curative-intent lung cancer surgery vary in populations. Surgeons are key drivers of surgical quality. We examined the association between surgeon-level intermediate outcomes differences, patient survival differences, and potential mitigation by processes of care.PATIENTS AND METHODSUsing a baseline population-based surgical resection cohort, we derived surgeon-level cut points for rates of positive margins, nonexamination of lymph nodes, nonexamination of mediastinal lymph nodes, and wedge resections. Applying the baseline cut points to a subsequent cohort from the same population-based data set, we assign surgeons into three performance categories in reference to each metric: 1 (\u3c25th percentile), 2 (25th-75th percentile), and 3 (\u3e75th percentile). The sum of performance scores created three surgeon quality tiers: 1 (4-6, low), 2 (7-9, intermediate), and 3 (10-12, high). We used chi-squared, Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney, and Kruskal-Wallis tests to compare patient characteristics between the baseline and subsequent cohorts and across surgeon tiers. We applied Cox proportional hazards models to examine the association between patient survival and surgeon performance tier, sequentially adjusting for clinical stage, patient characteristics, and four specific processes.RESULTSFrom 2009 to 2021, 39 surgeons performed 4,082 resections across the baseline and subsequent cohorts. Among 31 subsequent cohort surgeons, five were tier 1, five were tier 2, and 21 were tier 3. Tier 1 and 2 surgeons had significantly worse outcomes than tier 3 surgeons (hazard ratio [HR], 1.37; 95% CI, 1.10 to 1.72 and 1.19; 95% CI, 1.00 to 1.43, respectively). Adjustment for specific processes mitigated the surgeon-Tiered survival differences, with adjusted HRs of 1.02 (95% CI, 0.8 to 1.3) and 0.93 (95% CI, 0.7 to 1.25), respectively.CONCLUSIONReadily accessible intermediate outcomes metrics can be used to stratify surgeon performance for targeted process improvement, potentially reducing patient survival disparities

Two Interventions on Pathologic Nodal Staging in a Population-Based Lung Cancer Resection Cohort

Background: Despite its prognostic importance, poor pathologic nodal staging of lung cancer prevails. We evaluated the impact of 2 interventions to improve pathologic nodal staging. Methods: We implemented a lymph node specimen collection kit to improve intraoperative lymph node collection (surgical intervention) and a novel gross dissection method for intrapulmonary node retrieval (pathology intervention) in nonrandomized stepped-wedge fashion, involving 12 hospitals and 7 pathology groups. We used standard statistical methods to compare surgical quality and survival of patients who had neither intervention (group 1), pathology intervention only (group 2), surgical intervention only (group 3), and both interventions (group 4). Results: Of 4019 patients from 2009 to 2021, 50%, 5%, 21%, and 24%, respectively, were in groups 1 to 4. Rates of nonexamination of lymph nodes were 11%, 9%, 0%, and 0% and rates of nonexamination of mediastinal lymph nodes were 29%, 35%, 2%, and 2%, respectively, in groups 1 to 4 (P \u3c .0001). Rates of attainment of American College of Surgeons Operative Standard 5.8 were 22%, 29%, 72%, and 85%; and rates of International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer complete resection were 14%, 21%, 53%, and 61% (P \u3c .0001). Compared with group 1, adjusted hazard ratios for death were as follows: group 2, 0.93 (95% CI, 0.76-1.15); group 3, 0.91 (0.78-1.03); and group 4, 0.75 (0.64-0.87). Compared with group 2, group 4 adjusted hazard ratio was 0.72 (0.57-0.91); compared with group 3, it was 0.83 (0.69-0.99). These relationships remained after exclusion of wedge resections. Conclusions: Combining a lymph node collection kit with a novel gross dissection method significantly improved pathologic nodal evaluation and survival