Does size matter?:Hospital volume and resource use in paediatric diabetes care

Aims: Paediatric diabetes care has become increasingly specialised due to the multidisciplinary approach and technological developments. Guidelines recommend sufficient experience of treatment teams. This study evaluates associations between hospital volume and resource use and hospital expenditure in Dutch children with diabetes. Methods: Retrospective cohort study using hospital claims data of 5082 children treated across 44 Dutch hospitals (2019–2020). Hospitals were categorised into three categories; small (≥20–100 patients), medium (≥100–200 patients) and large (≥200 patients). All-cause hospitalisations, consultations, technology and hospital expenditure were analysed and adjusted for age, sex, socio-economic status (SES) and hospital of treatment. Results: Fewer hospitalisations were observed in large hospitals compared to small hospitals (OR 0.48; [95% CI 0.32–0.72]; p &lt; 0.001). Median number of yearly paediatrician visits was 7 in large and 6 in small hospitals, the significance of which was attenuated in multilevel analysis (OR ≥7 consultations: 1.89; [95%CI 0.74–4.83]; p = 0.18). Technology use varies between individual hospitals, whereas pump usage and real-time continuous glucose monitoring showed no significant differences between hospital volumes. Mean overall expenditure was highest in medium-sized centres with €6434 per patient (IQR €2555–7955); the difference in diabetes care costs was not significant between hospital patient volumes. Conclusions: Care provision patterns vary by hospital patient volume. Large hospitals had the lowest hospitalisation rates. The use of diabetes technology was not different between hospital patient volumes. Medium-sized hospitals showed the highest overall expenditure, but diabetes care costs were similar across hospital volumes.</p

Variation in survival after surgery for peri-ampullary cancer in a regional cancer network

Background: Centralisation of specialist surgical services requires that patients are referred to a regional centre for surgery. This process may disadvantage patients who live far from the regional centre or are referred from other hospitals by making referral less likely and by delaying treatment, thereby allowing tumour progression. The aim of this study is to explore the outcome of surgery for peri-ampullary cancer (PC) with respect to referring hospital and travel distance for treatment within a network served by five hospitals. Methods: Review of a unit database was undertaken of patients undergoing surgery for PC between January 2006 and May 2014. Results: 394 patients were studied. Although both the median travel distance for patients from the five hospitals (10.8, 86, 78.8, 54.7 and 89.2 km) (p < 0.05), and the annual operation rate for PC (2.99, 3.29, 2.13, 3.32 and 3.07 per 100,000) (p = 0.044) were significantly different, no correlation was noted between patient travel distance and population operation rate at each hospital. No difference was noted between patients from each hospital in terms of resection completion rate or pathological stage of the resected tumours. The median survival after diagnosis for patients referred from different hospitals ranged from 1.2 to 1.7 years and regression analysis revealed that increased travel distance to the regional centre was associated with a small survival advantage. Conclusion: Although variation in the provision and outcome of surgery for PC between regional hospitals is noted, this is not adversely affected by geographical isolation from the regional centre

Completion Dissection or Observation for Sentinel-Node Metastasis in Melanoma.

Sentinel-lymph-node biopsy is associated with increased melanoma-specific survival (i.e., survival until death from melanoma) among patients with node-positive intermediate-thickness melanomas (1.2 to 3.5 mm). The value of completion lymph-node dissection for patients with sentinel-node metastases is not clear. In an international trial, we randomly assigned patients with sentinel-node metastases detected by means of standard pathological assessment or a multimarker molecular assay to immediate completion lymph-node dissection (dissection group) or nodal observation with ultrasonography (observation group). The primary end point was melanoma-specific survival. Secondary end points included disease-free survival and the cumulative rate of nonsentinel-node metastasis. Immediate completion lymph-node dissection was not associated with increased melanoma-specific survival among 1934 patients with data that could be evaluated in an intention-to-treat analysis or among 1755 patients in the per-protocol analysis. In the per-protocol analysis, the mean (±SE) 3-year rate of melanoma-specific survival was similar in the dissection group and the observation group (86±1.3% and 86±1.2%, respectively; P=0.42 by the log-rank test) at a median follow-up of 43 months. The rate of disease-free survival was slightly higher in the dissection group than in the observation group (68±1.7% and 63±1.7%, respectively; P=0.05 by the log-rank test) at 3 years, based on an increased rate of disease control in the regional nodes at 3 years (92±1.0% vs. 77±1.5%; P&lt;0.001 by the log-rank test); these results must be interpreted with caution. Nonsentinel-node metastases, identified in 11.5% of the patients in the dissection group, were a strong, independent prognostic factor for recurrence (hazard ratio, 1.78; P=0.005). Lymphedema was observed in 24.1% of the patients in the dissection group and in 6.3% of those in the observation group. Immediate completion lymph-node dissection increased the rate of regional disease control and provided prognostic information but did not increase melanoma-specific survival among patients with melanoma and sentinel-node metastases. (Funded by the National Cancer Institute and others; MSLT-II ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00297895 .)

Sternal Resection for Sarcoma, Recurrent Breast Cancer, and Radiation-Induced Necrosis

Background. The purpose of this study was to investigate the long-term outcome and technical feasibility of sternal resection. Methods. We performed a 25-year retrospective study of 68 patients who underwent a sternectomy for sarcoma, recurrent breast cancer (BC) or radiation-induced necrosis between 1981 and 2006 in two tertiary referral centres (Erasmus Medical Center/Daniel den Hoed Cancer Center and Netherlands Cancer Center/Antoni van Leeuwen-hoek Hospital, Netherlands). Patients were treated with curative intent and followed until May 2009. Medical records were reviewed for patient characteristics, indications for surgery, surgical technique, postoperative complications, and survival. Results. Sternal resection was performed in 43 sarcoma patients, 17 recurrent BC and 8 patients with radiation-induced necrosis with additional rib resection in the majority of patients and with clavicle resection in 13% of patients. Additional scapula, lung, breast or axilla resection, or both, was performed in 10%. Two patients died postoperatively (3%). Mild complications occurred in 24%, and severe complications (namely, pulmonary complications and reinterventions) in 16% of patients. Radical resection was achieved in 80% and 53% of sarcoma and recurrent BC patients, respectively. Five-year overall survival was 64% and 40% in sarcoma and recurrent BC patients, respectively, with 5-year disease-free survivals of 52% and 15%, respectively. Conclusions. Sarcomas, recurrent BC, and radiation-induced necrosis can be successfully managed by sternal resection and reconstruction with curative intent. Low mortality and acceptable morbidity rates justify this operation in a palliative setting as well. Disease-free survival is poor among recurrent BC patients. (Ann Thorac Surg 2010;90:1102-9) (c) 2010 by The Society of Thoracic Surgeon

Centralization of Esophageal Cancer Surgery: Does It Improve Clinical Outcome?

The volume-outcome relationship for complex surgical procedures has been extensively studied. Most studies are based on administrative data and use in-hospital mortality as the sole outcome measure. It is still unknown if concentration of these procedures leads to improvement of clinical outcome. The aim of our study was to audit the process and effect of centralizing oesophageal resections for cancer by using detailed clinical data. From January 1990 until December 2004, 555 esophagectomies for cancer were performed in 11 hospitals in the region of the Comprehensive Cancer Center West (CCCW); 342 patients were operated on before and 213 patients after the introduction of a centralization project. In this project patients were referred to the hospitals which showed superior outcomes in a regional audit. In this audit patient, tumor, and operative details as well as clinical outcome were compared between hospitals. The outcome of both cohorts, patients operated on before and after the start of the project, were evaluated. Despite the more severe comorbidity of the patient group, outcome improved after centralizing esophageal resections. Along with a reduction in postoperative morbidity and length of stay, mortality fell from 12% to 4% and survival improved significantly (P = 0.001). The hospitals with the highest procedural volume showed the biggest improvement in outcome. Volume is an important determinant of quality of care in esophageal cancer surgery. Referral of patients with esophageal cancer to surgical units with adequate experience and superior outcomes (outcome-based referral) improves quality of care