What provider volumes and characteristics are appropriate for gastric cancer resection? Results of an international RAND/UCLA expert panel

Matthew Dixon; Alyson Mahar; Lawrence Paszat; Robin McLeod; Calvin Law; Carol Swallow; Lucy Helyer; Rajini Seeveratnam; Roberta Cardoso; Tanios Bekaii-Saab; Ian Chau; Neal Church; Daniel Coit; Christopher H. Crane; Craig Earle; Paul Mansfield; Norman Marcon; Thomas Miner; Sung Hoon Noh; Geoff Porter; Mitchell C. Posner; Vivek Prachand; Takeshi Sano; Cornelis J.H. Van De Velde; Sandra Wong; Natalie Coburn

doi:10.1016/j.surg.2013.05.021

What provider volumes and characteristics are appropriate for gastric cancer resection? Results of an international RAND/UCLA expert panel

Matthew Dixon, Alyson Mahar, Lawrence Paszat, Robin McLeod, Calvin Law, Carol Swallow, Lucy Helyer, Rajini Seeveratnam, Roberta Cardoso, Tanios Bekaii-Saab, Ian Chau, Neal Church, Daniel Coit, Christopher H. Crane, Craig Earle, Paul Mansfield, Norman Marcon, Thomas Miner, Sung Hoon Noh, Geoff PorterMitchell C. Posner, Vivek Prachand, Takeshi Sano, Cornelis J.H. Van De Velde, Sandra Wong, Natalie Coburn

Medicine

Medicine

Résultat de recherche: Article › examen par les pairs

13 Citations (Scopus)

Résumé

Background: A relationship between higher volume providers and improved outcomes has been suggested by some studies and has been used to construct guidelines for many diseases. For gastric cancer (GC), however, optimal volume cutoffs are not clear. Methods: A multidisciplinary expert panel of 16 physicians from 6 countries scored 120 scenarios regarding provider characteristics for gastric resections for GC. Appropriateness of scenarios was scored from 1 (highly inappropriate) to 9 (highly appropriate). Median appropriateness scores from 1 to 3 were considered inappropriate, 4 to 6 uncertain, and 7 to 9 appropriate. Agreement was reached when 12 of 16 panelists scored the statement similarly. Appropriate scenarios agreed on were scored subsequently for necessity. Results: Surgeon and hospital practice volume scenarios were evaluated. The panel felt it was inappropriate for surgeons doing ≤2 GC cases per year to perform a multivisceral resection (MVR), D2 lymphadenectomy (D2-LND), or laparoscopic total gastrectomy, and ≤6 GC cases per year for an MVR involving a pancreatoduodenectomy (MVR-PD), or endoscopic mucosal resections (EMR). It was considered appropriate for surgeons doing ≥11 GC cases per year to perform open gastrectomy or D2-LND, and ≥20 GC cases per year for any MVR, laparoscopic gastrectomy, or EMR. For hospitals, it was considered inappropriate for hospitals managing ≤4 GC cases per year to perform D2-LND or laparoscopic total gastrectomy, and ≤10 GC cases per year, for MVR-PD or EMR. Hospital volumes ≥21 cases per year was considered appropriate for any GC procedure. It was inappropriate for an MVR to be performed in a hospital without interventional radiology services and for a MVR-PD in a hospital with no level I intensive care unit. Conclusion: Appropriate and inappropriate provider volumes for a variety of gastric procedures have been defined by an international expert panel.

Langue d'origine	English
Pages (de-à)	1100-1109
Nombre de pages	10
Journal	Surgery
Volume	154
Numéro de publication	5
DOI	https://doi.org/10.1016/j.surg.2013.05.021
Statut de publication	Published - nov. 2013

Note bibliographique

Funding Information:
This research is funded by the Canadian Cancer Society (grant # 019325 ). Dr. Coburn (Career Scientist Award) and Dr. Paszat have received funding provided by Cancer Care Ontario and the Ontario Institute for Cancer Research (through funding provided by the Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care and the Ministry of Research & Innovation of the Government of Ontario). Dr. Law is supported by the Hanna Family Research Chair in Surgical Oncology . Ian Chau would like to acknowledge the National Health Service funding to the National Institute for Health Research's Biomedical Research Centre. Dr. Earle is supported by the Ontario Institute for Cancer Research, funded by the Government of Ontario . The authors have no conflicts of interest to disclose.

ASJC Scopus Subject Areas

Surgery

PubMed: MeSH publication types

Consensus Development Conference
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't

ODD de l’ONU

Cette action contribue à la réalisation des objectifs de développement durable suivants

Accès au document

10.1016/j.surg.2013.05.021

Autres fichiers et liens

Citer

Dixon, M., Mahar, A., Paszat, L., McLeod, R., Law, C., Swallow, C., Helyer, L., Seeveratnam, R., Cardoso, R., Bekaii-Saab, T., Chau, I., Church, N., Coit, D., Crane, C. H., Earle, C., Mansfield, P., Marcon, N., Miner, T., Noh, S. H., ... Coburn, N. (2013). What provider volumes and characteristics are appropriate for gastric cancer resection? Results of an international RAND/UCLA expert panel. Surgery, 154(5), 1100-1109. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.surg.2013.05.021

Dixon, M, Mahar, A, Paszat, L, McLeod, R, Law, C, Swallow, C, Helyer, L, Seeveratnam, R, Cardoso, R, Bekaii-Saab, T, Chau, I, Church, N, Coit, D, Crane, CH, Earle, C, Mansfield, P, Marcon, N, Miner, T, Noh, SH, Porter, G, Posner, MC, Prachand, V, Sano, T, Van De Velde, CJH, Wong, S & Coburn, N 2013, 'What provider volumes and characteristics are appropriate for gastric cancer resection? Results of an international RAND/UCLA expert panel', Surgery, vol. 154, n° 5, pp. 1100-1109. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.surg.2013.05.021

@article{d22258cd8de648c595c30337f04cf758,

title = "What provider volumes and characteristics are appropriate for gastric cancer resection? Results of an international RAND/UCLA expert panel",

abstract = "Background: A relationship between higher volume providers and improved outcomes has been suggested by some studies and has been used to construct guidelines for many diseases. For gastric cancer (GC), however, optimal volume cutoffs are not clear. Methods: A multidisciplinary expert panel of 16 physicians from 6 countries scored 120 scenarios regarding provider characteristics for gastric resections for GC. Appropriateness of scenarios was scored from 1 (highly inappropriate) to 9 (highly appropriate). Median appropriateness scores from 1 to 3 were considered inappropriate, 4 to 6 uncertain, and 7 to 9 appropriate. Agreement was reached when 12 of 16 panelists scored the statement similarly. Appropriate scenarios agreed on were scored subsequently for necessity. Results: Surgeon and hospital practice volume scenarios were evaluated. The panel felt it was inappropriate for surgeons doing ≤2 GC cases per year to perform a multivisceral resection (MVR), D2 lymphadenectomy (D2-LND), or laparoscopic total gastrectomy, and ≤6 GC cases per year for an MVR involving a pancreatoduodenectomy (MVR-PD), or endoscopic mucosal resections (EMR). It was considered appropriate for surgeons doing ≥11 GC cases per year to perform open gastrectomy or D2-LND, and ≥20 GC cases per year for any MVR, laparoscopic gastrectomy, or EMR. For hospitals, it was considered inappropriate for hospitals managing ≤4 GC cases per year to perform D2-LND or laparoscopic total gastrectomy, and ≤10 GC cases per year, for MVR-PD or EMR. Hospital volumes ≥21 cases per year was considered appropriate for any GC procedure. It was inappropriate for an MVR to be performed in a hospital without interventional radiology services and for a MVR-PD in a hospital with no level I intensive care unit. Conclusion: Appropriate and inappropriate provider volumes for a variety of gastric procedures have been defined by an international expert panel.",

author = "Matthew Dixon and Alyson Mahar and Lawrence Paszat and Robin McLeod and Calvin Law and Carol Swallow and Lucy Helyer and Rajini Seeveratnam and Roberta Cardoso and Tanios Bekaii-Saab and Ian Chau and Neal Church and Daniel Coit and Crane, {Christopher H.} and Craig Earle and Paul Mansfield and Norman Marcon and Thomas Miner and Noh, {Sung Hoon} and Geoff Porter and Posner, {Mitchell C.} and Vivek Prachand and Takeshi Sano and {Van De Velde}, {Cornelis J.H.} and Sandra Wong and Natalie Coburn",

note = "Funding Information: This research is funded by the Canadian Cancer Society (grant # 019325 ). Dr. Coburn (Career Scientist Award) and Dr. Paszat have received funding provided by Cancer Care Ontario and the Ontario Institute for Cancer Research (through funding provided by the Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care and the Ministry of Research & Innovation of the Government of Ontario). Dr. Law is supported by the Hanna Family Research Chair in Surgical Oncology . Ian Chau would like to acknowledge the National Health Service funding to the National Institute for Health Research's Biomedical Research Centre. Dr. Earle is supported by the Ontario Institute for Cancer Research, funded by the Government of Ontario . The authors have no conflicts of interest to disclose. ",

year = "2013",

month = nov,

doi = "10.1016/j.surg.2013.05.021",

language = "English",

volume = "154",

pages = "1100--1109",

journal = "Surgery",

issn = "0039-6060",

publisher = "Mosby Inc.",

number = "5",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - What provider volumes and characteristics are appropriate for gastric cancer resection? Results of an international RAND/UCLA expert panel

AU - Dixon, Matthew

AU - Mahar, Alyson

AU - Paszat, Lawrence

AU - McLeod, Robin

AU - Law, Calvin

AU - Swallow, Carol

AU - Helyer, Lucy

AU - Seeveratnam, Rajini

AU - Cardoso, Roberta

AU - Bekaii-Saab, Tanios

AU - Chau, Ian

AU - Church, Neal

AU - Coit, Daniel

AU - Crane, Christopher H.

AU - Earle, Craig

AU - Mansfield, Paul

AU - Marcon, Norman

AU - Miner, Thomas

AU - Noh, Sung Hoon

AU - Porter, Geoff

AU - Posner, Mitchell C.

AU - Prachand, Vivek

AU - Sano, Takeshi

AU - Van De Velde, Cornelis J.H.

AU - Wong, Sandra

AU - Coburn, Natalie

N1 - Funding Information: This research is funded by the Canadian Cancer Society (grant # 019325 ). Dr. Coburn (Career Scientist Award) and Dr. Paszat have received funding provided by Cancer Care Ontario and the Ontario Institute for Cancer Research (through funding provided by the Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care and the Ministry of Research & Innovation of the Government of Ontario). Dr. Law is supported by the Hanna Family Research Chair in Surgical Oncology . Ian Chau would like to acknowledge the National Health Service funding to the National Institute for Health Research's Biomedical Research Centre. Dr. Earle is supported by the Ontario Institute for Cancer Research, funded by the Government of Ontario . The authors have no conflicts of interest to disclose.

PY - 2013/11

Y1 - 2013/11

N2 - Background: A relationship between higher volume providers and improved outcomes has been suggested by some studies and has been used to construct guidelines for many diseases. For gastric cancer (GC), however, optimal volume cutoffs are not clear. Methods: A multidisciplinary expert panel of 16 physicians from 6 countries scored 120 scenarios regarding provider characteristics for gastric resections for GC. Appropriateness of scenarios was scored from 1 (highly inappropriate) to 9 (highly appropriate). Median appropriateness scores from 1 to 3 were considered inappropriate, 4 to 6 uncertain, and 7 to 9 appropriate. Agreement was reached when 12 of 16 panelists scored the statement similarly. Appropriate scenarios agreed on were scored subsequently for necessity. Results: Surgeon and hospital practice volume scenarios were evaluated. The panel felt it was inappropriate for surgeons doing ≤2 GC cases per year to perform a multivisceral resection (MVR), D2 lymphadenectomy (D2-LND), or laparoscopic total gastrectomy, and ≤6 GC cases per year for an MVR involving a pancreatoduodenectomy (MVR-PD), or endoscopic mucosal resections (EMR). It was considered appropriate for surgeons doing ≥11 GC cases per year to perform open gastrectomy or D2-LND, and ≥20 GC cases per year for any MVR, laparoscopic gastrectomy, or EMR. For hospitals, it was considered inappropriate for hospitals managing ≤4 GC cases per year to perform D2-LND or laparoscopic total gastrectomy, and ≤10 GC cases per year, for MVR-PD or EMR. Hospital volumes ≥21 cases per year was considered appropriate for any GC procedure. It was inappropriate for an MVR to be performed in a hospital without interventional radiology services and for a MVR-PD in a hospital with no level I intensive care unit. Conclusion: Appropriate and inappropriate provider volumes for a variety of gastric procedures have been defined by an international expert panel.

AB - Background: A relationship between higher volume providers and improved outcomes has been suggested by some studies and has been used to construct guidelines for many diseases. For gastric cancer (GC), however, optimal volume cutoffs are not clear. Methods: A multidisciplinary expert panel of 16 physicians from 6 countries scored 120 scenarios regarding provider characteristics for gastric resections for GC. Appropriateness of scenarios was scored from 1 (highly inappropriate) to 9 (highly appropriate). Median appropriateness scores from 1 to 3 were considered inappropriate, 4 to 6 uncertain, and 7 to 9 appropriate. Agreement was reached when 12 of 16 panelists scored the statement similarly. Appropriate scenarios agreed on were scored subsequently for necessity. Results: Surgeon and hospital practice volume scenarios were evaluated. The panel felt it was inappropriate for surgeons doing ≤2 GC cases per year to perform a multivisceral resection (MVR), D2 lymphadenectomy (D2-LND), or laparoscopic total gastrectomy, and ≤6 GC cases per year for an MVR involving a pancreatoduodenectomy (MVR-PD), or endoscopic mucosal resections (EMR). It was considered appropriate for surgeons doing ≥11 GC cases per year to perform open gastrectomy or D2-LND, and ≥20 GC cases per year for any MVR, laparoscopic gastrectomy, or EMR. For hospitals, it was considered inappropriate for hospitals managing ≤4 GC cases per year to perform D2-LND or laparoscopic total gastrectomy, and ≤10 GC cases per year, for MVR-PD or EMR. Hospital volumes ≥21 cases per year was considered appropriate for any GC procedure. It was inappropriate for an MVR to be performed in a hospital without interventional radiology services and for a MVR-PD in a hospital with no level I intensive care unit. Conclusion: Appropriate and inappropriate provider volumes for a variety of gastric procedures have been defined by an international expert panel.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84886094617&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84886094617&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.surg.2013.05.021

DO - 10.1016/j.surg.2013.05.021

M3 - Article

C2 - 24075275

AN - SCOPUS:84886094617

SN - 0039-6060

VL - 154

SP - 1100

EP - 1109

JO - Surgery

JF - Surgery

IS - 5

ER -

What provider volumes and characteristics are appropriate for gastric cancer resection? Results of an international RAND/UCLA expert panel

Résumé

Note bibliographique

ASJC Scopus Subject Areas

PubMed: MeSH publication types

ODD de l’ONU

Accès au document

Autres fichiers et liens

Empreinte numérique

Citer