Vol 26, No 4 (2021)
Research paper
Published online: 2021-04-19

open access

Page views 250
Article views/downloads 209
Get Citation

Connect on Social Media

Connect on Social Media

Impact of hospital volume on mortality for brain metastases treated with radiation

Shearwood McClelland III1, Catherine Degnin2, Yiyi Chen2, Jerry J. Jaboin3
DOI: 10.5603/RPOR.a2021.0084
Rep Pract Oncol Radiother 2021;26(4):626-634.

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The impact of hospital volume on cancer patient survival has been demonstrated in the surgical literature, but sparsely for patients receiving radiation therapy (RT). This analysis addresses the impact of hospital volume on patients receiving RT for the most common central nervous system tumor: brain metastases.  

MATERIALS AND METHODS: Analysis was conducted using the National Cancer Database (NCDB) from 2010–2015 for patients with metastatic brain disease from lung cancer, breast cancer, and colorectal cancer requiring RT. Hospital volume was stratified as high-volume (≥ 12 brain RT/year), moderate (5–11 RT/year), and low (< 5 RT/year). The effect of hospital volume on overall survival was assessed using a multivariable Cox regression model.

RESULTS: A total of 18,841 patients [9479 (50.3%) men, 9362 (49.7%) women; median age 64 years] met the inclusion criteria. 16.7% were treated at high-volume hospitals, 36.5% at moderate-volume, and the remaining 46.8% at low-volume centers. Multivariable analysis revealed that mortality was significantly improved in high-volume centers (HR: 0.95, p = 0.039) compared with low-volume centers after accounting for multiple demographics including age, sex, race, insurance status, income, facility type, Charlson-Deyo score and receipt of palliative care.

CONCLUSION: Hospitals performing 12 or more brain RT procedures per year have significantly improved survival in brain metastases patients receiving radiation as compared to lower volume hospitals. This finding, independent of additional demographics, indicates that the increased experience associated with increased volume may improve survival in this patient population.

Article available in PDF format

View PDF Download PDF file

References

  1. McClelland S, Guo H, Okuyemi KS. Morbidity and mortality following acoustic neuroma excision in the United States: analysis of racial disparities during a decade in the radiosurgery era. Neuro Oncol. 2011; 13(11): 1252–1259.
  2. Koshy M, Sher DJ, Spiotto M, et al. Association between hospital volume and receipt of treatment and survival in patients with glioblastoma. J Neurooncol. 2017; 135(3): 529–534.
  3. Greenup RA, Obeng-Gyasi S, Thomas S, et al. The Effect of Hospital Volume on Breast Cancer Mortality. Ann Surg. 2018; 267(2): 375–381.
  4. Lüchtenborg M, Riaz SP, Coupland VH, et al. High procedure volume is strongly associated with improved survival after lung cancer surgery. J Clin Oncol. 2013; 31(25): 3141–3146.
  5. El Amrani M, Clement G, Lenne X, et al. The Impact of Hospital Volume and Charlson Score on Postoperative Mortality of Proctectomy for Rectal Cancer: A Nationwide Study of 45,569 Patients. Ann Surg. 2018; 268(5): 854–860.
  6. Hauser A, Dutta SW, Showalter TN, et al. Impact of academic facility type and volume on post-surgical outcomes following diagnosis of glioblastoma. J Clin Neurosci. 2018; 47: 103–110.
  7. Lin SM, Ku HY, Chang TC, et al. Outcomes for Cervical Cancer Patients Treated With Radiation in High-Volume and Low-Volume Hospitals. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2018; 102(1): 184–193.
  8. American College of Surgeons Commission on Cancer. National Cancer Data Base, 2008 Data Submission. American College of Surgeons, Chicago 2011.
  9. Park HS, Wang EH, Rutter CE, et al. Changing practice patterns of Gamma Knife versus linear accelerator-based stereotactic radiosurgery for brain metastases in the US. J Neurosurg. 2016; 124(4): 1018–1024.
  10. Charlson ME, Pompei P, Ales KL, et al. A new method of classifying prognostic comorbidity in longitudinal studies: development and validation. J Chronic Dis. 1987; 40(5): 373–383.
  11. Deyo RA, Cherkin DC, Ciol MA. Adapting a clinical comorbidity index for use with ICD-9-CM administrative databases. J Clin Epidemiol. 1992; 45(6): 613–619.
  12. Bilimoria KY, Bentrem DJ, Stewart AK, et al. Comparison of commission on cancer-approved and -nonapproved hospitals in the United States: implications for studies that use the National Cancer Data Base. J Clin Oncol. 2009; 27(25): 4177–4181.