Top

Annals of Surgical Oncology

Published in:

13-12-2023 | Global Health Services Research

Impact of Commission on Cancer Accreditation on Cancer Survival: A Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) Database Analysis

Authors: Armaan Ahmed, Jennifer Whittington, MD, PhD, FACS, FSSO, Zahra Shafaee, MD, MBA, FSSO, FACS

Published in: Annals of Surgical Oncology | Issue 4/2024

Abstract

Introduction

To analyze the cancer burden in the United States, researchers are relying on the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) Program. Our objective was to analyze differences in cancer outcome between Commission on Cancer (CoC)-accredited and non-accredited facilities.

Methods

The SEER database was queried for diagnosis years 2018 and 2019. Only analytic cases were included. Observed survival was calculated using the Kaplan–Meier method for all cancer sites, stratified by accreditation status. Univariate analyses were performed to quantify differences in survival between cancer cases in CoC-accredited and non-CoC-accredited facilities. Cancers of interest were chosen based on statistical significance (p < 0.01) and clinical significance (> 25% difference in end survival). Multivariate analyses were conducted on cancers of interest.

Results

Overall, there were 602,185 cases from CoC-accredited facilities and 198,492 from non-CoC-accredited facilities. 5 of 59 solid organ cancers showed statistically and clinically significant reductions in survival in non-accredited facilities (lung and bronchus: 27.9%; liver: 41.1%; esophagus: 30.4%; pancreas: 32.7%; intrahepatic bile duct: 39.4%). Multivariate analysis on these 5 cancers was performed. CoC accreditation was a statistically significant variable decreasing the hazard in all 5 cancers (hazard ratio 0.86–0.91; all p-values <0.005). All these cancers demand resource-intensive treatment.

Conclusion

Accreditation has a significant impact on survival in 5/59 solid organ cancers. Although accredited facilities may be better apt to handle these cancer cases, the survival in most cancers is not significantly affected by accreditation. However, examining longer-term endpoints elucidate further nuances. Herein, CoC accreditation was found to be an independent variable impacting 2-year survival for a minority of cancers.

Available only for authorised users

Siegel RL, Miller KD, Fuchs HE, Jemal A. Cancer statistics, 2022. CA: A Cancer J Clin. 2022;72(1):7–33. https://doi.org/10.3322/caac.21708.CrossRef

Weir HK, Thompson TD, Stewart SL, White MC. Cancer incidence projections in the united states between 2015 and 2050. Prev Chronic Dis. 2021;18:210006. https://doi.org/10.5888/pcd18.210006.CrossRef

About the SEER PROGRAM. Surveillance, epidemiology, and end results program. Available at: https://seer.cancer.gov/about/. Accessed 11 Aug 2022.

Adamo M, Groves C, Dickie L, Ruhl J. SEER program coding and staging manual 2021. Bethesda, MD: National Cancer Institute; 2020.

Kremer K, Carlson M, Lee J, Lococo S, Miller D, Lea J. Prognostic factors associated with overall survival in presumed early stage, high-grade serous ovarian cancer: an analysis of the SEER cancer database. Gynecol Oncol. 2021;162:S246. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0090-8258(21)01119-7.CrossRef

Schroeder MC, Gao X, Lizarraga I, Kahl AR, Charlton ME. The impact of commission on cancer accreditation status, hospital rurality and hospital size on quality measure performance rates. Ann Surg Oncol. 2022;29(4):2527–36. https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-021-11304-3.CrossRefPubMed

Standards and Resources. ACS. Available at: https://www.facs.org/quality-programs/cancer-programs/commission-on-cancer/standards-and-resources/. Accessed 5 Jan 2023.

Fast Facts on U.S. Hospitals, 2022. May 2023. Available at: https://www.aha.org/statistics/fast-facts-us-hospitals. Accessed 5 Jan 2023.

Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) Program. SEER*Stat database: incidence–SEER research data, 17 Registries, Nov 2021 Sub, April 2022. Available at: www.seer.cancer.gov

10.

Surveillance Research Program. National cancer institute. SEER*Stat software. Available at: seer.cancer.gov/seerstat

11.

Cressie N, Read TRC. Multinomial goodness-of-fit tests. JR Stat Soc Ser B Methodol. 1984;46(3):440–64.MathSciNet

12.

Newcombe RG. Interval estimation for the difference between independent proportions: comparison of eleven methods. Stat Med. 1998;17(8):873–90. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-0258(19980430)17:8%3c873::AID-SIM779%3e3.0.CO;2-I.CrossRefPubMed

13.

Janz TA, Graboyes EM, Nguyen SA, et al. A comparison of the NCDB and SEER database for research involving head and neck cancer. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2019;160(2):284–94. https://doi.org/10.1177/0194599818792205.CrossRefPubMed

14.

D’Agostino RB. An omnibus test of normality for moderate and large size samples. Biometrika. 1971;58(2):341–8. https://doi.org/10.1093/biomet/58.2.341.MathSciNetCrossRef

15.

D’Aagostino R, Pearson ES. Tests for departure from normality. Empirical results for the distributions of b2 and √b1. Biometrika. 1973;60(3):613–22. https://doi.org/10.1093/biomet/60.3.613.MathSciNetCrossRef

16.

Virtanen P, Gommers R, Oliphant TE, et al. SciPy 1.0: fundamental algorithms for scientific computing in python. Nat Methods. 2020;17:261–72. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41592-019-0686-2.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

17.

Klein JP, Logan B, Harhoff M, Andersen PK. Analyzing survival curves at a fixed point in time. Stat Med. 2007;26(24):4505–19. https://doi.org/10.1002/sim.2864.MathSciNetCrossRefPubMed

18.

Davidson-Pilon C. Lifelines: survival analysis in Python. J Open Source Softw. 2019;4(40):1317. https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.01317.ADSCrossRef

19.

Royston P, Parmar MK. Restricted mean survival time: an alternative to the hazard ratio for the design and analysis of randomized trials with a time-to-event outcome. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2013;13(1):152. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-13-152.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

20.

van Rossum (Guido) G. Python reference manual. Department of computer science [CS]; 1995 (R 9525). Available at: https://ir.cwi.nl/pub/5008. Accessed 29 Dec 2022.

21.

Harris CR, Millman KJ, van der Walt SJ, et al. Array programming with NumPy. Nature. 2020;585(7825):357–62. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2.ADSCrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

22.

The Pandas Development Team. pandas-dev/pandas: pandas; February 2020. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3509134

23.

McKinney W. Data structures for statistical computing in python. In: Walt S van der, Millman J, editors. Proceedings of the 9th python in science conference; 2010. p. 56-61. https://doi.org/10.25080/Majora-92bf1922-00a

24.

Charlier F, Weber M, Izak D, et al. Statannotations. October 2022. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7213391

25.

Seabold S, Perktold J. statsmodels: econometric and statistical modeling with python. In: 9th python in science conference; 2010.

26.

Hunter JD. Matplotlib: a 2D graphics environment. Comput Sci Eng. 2007;9(3):90–5. https://doi.org/10.1109/MCSE.2007.55.CrossRef

27.

Waskom ML. seaborn: statistical data visualization. J Open Source Softw. 2021;6(60):3021. https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.03021.ADSCrossRef

28.

Kluyver T, Ragan-Kelley B, Pérez F, et al. Jupyter notebooks–a publishing format for reproducible computational workflows. In: F Loizides, B Scmidt, editors., et al., Positioning and power in academic publishing: players, agents and agendas. Amsterdam: IOS Press; 2016. p. 87–90.

29.

Mölder F, Jablonski K, Letcher B, et al. Sustainable data analysis with Snakemake [version 2; peer review: 2 approved]. F1000Research. 2021;10:33. https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.29032.2.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

30.

da Costa-Luis CO. tqdm[bot] tqdm: a fast extensible progress bar for python and CLI. J Open Sour Softw. 2022;4(37):1277. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6306824.CrossRef

31.

Kim DH, Uno H, Wei LJ. Restricted mean survival time as a measure to interpret clinical trial results. JAMA Cardiol. 2017;2(11):1179–80. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamacardio.2017.2922.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

32.

Fong ZV, Chang DC, Hur C, et al. Variation in long-term oncologic outcomes by type of cancer center accreditation: an analysis of a SEER-Medicare population with pancreatic cancer. Am J Surg. 2020;220(1):29–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjsurg.2020.03.035.ADSCrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

33.

Merkow RP, Chung JW, Paruch JL, Bentrem DJ, Bilimoria KY. Relationship between cancer center accreditation and performance on publicly reported quality measures. Ann Surg. 2014;259(6):1091–7.CrossRefPubMed

34.

Bleicher RJ, Chang C, Wang CE, et al. Treatment delays from transfers of care and their impact on breast cancer quality measures. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2019;173(3):603–17. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-018-5046-x.CrossRefPubMed

35.

National Cancer Institute. National cancer institute overview and mission. 18 March 2015. Available at: https://www.cancer.gov/about-nci/overview. Accessed 24 May 2023.

36.

National Cancer Institute. Cancer research infrastructure. 3 April 2020. Available at: https://www.cancer.gov/research/infrastructure. Accessed 24 May 2023.

37.

Pardo JA, Fan B, Valero M, et al. Impact of geographic distribution of accredited breast centers. Breast J. 2020;26(11):2194–8. https://doi.org/10.1111/tbj.14073.CrossRefPubMed

38.

Brady JT, Bingmer K, Bliggenstorfer J, et al. Could meeting the standards of the national accreditation program for rectal cancer in the national cancer database improve patient outcomes? Colorectal Dis. 2023;25(5):916–22. https://doi.org/10.1111/codi.16503.CrossRefPubMed

39.

Robert Greenberg E, Baron JA, Dain BJ, Freeman DH Jr, Yates JW, Korson R. Cancer staging may have different meanings in academic and community hospitals. J Clin Epidemiol. 1991;44(6):505–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/0895-4356(91)90213-S.CrossRef

40.

David JM, Ho AS, Luu M, et al. Treatment at high-volume facilities and academic centers is independently associated with improved survival in patients with locally advanced head and neck cancer. Cancer. 2017;123(20):3933–42. https://doi.org/10.1002/cncr.30843.CrossRefPubMed

41.

Verma V, Allen PK, Simone CB II, Gay HA, Lin SH. Association of treatment at high-volume facilities with survival in patients receiving chemoradiotherapy for nasopharyngeal cancer. JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2018;144(1):86–9. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamaoto.2017.1874.CrossRefPubMed

42.

Perry LM, Bateni SB, Bold RJ, Hoch JS. Is improved survival in early-stage pancreatic cancer worth the extra cost at high-volume centers? J Am Coll Surg. 2021;233(1):90–8.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

43.

Muslim Z, Baig MZ, Weber JF, Connery CP, Bhora FY. Travelling to a high-volume center confers improved survival in stage I non-small cell lung cancer. Ann Thorac Surg. 2022;113(2):466–72. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.athoracsur.2021.02.028.CrossRefPubMed

Title: Impact of Commission on Cancer Accreditation on Cancer Survival: A Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) Database Analysis
Authors: Armaan Ahmed
Jennifer Whittington, MD, PhD, FACS, FSSO
Zahra Shafaee, MD, MBA, FSSO, FACS
Publication date: 13-12-2023
Publisher: Springer International Publishing
Published in: Annals of Surgical Oncology / Issue 4/2024
Print ISSN: 1068-9265
Electronic ISSN: 1534-4681
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-023-14709-4

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Impact of Commission on Cancer Accreditation on Cancer Survival: A Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) Database Analysis

Abstract

Introduction

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Introduction

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 4/2024

ASO Author Reflections: Approaching BIA-ACL Diagnosis and Treatment

ASO Visual Abstract: Long-Term Patient-Reported Arm Symptoms in Breast Cancer Survivors

ASO Visual Abstract: Morbidity and Outcomes of Primary Tumor Management in Patients with Widely Metastatic, Well-Differentiated, Small-Bowel Neuroendocrine Tumors

ASO Visual Abstract: Surgeon Perspectives on the Management of Aborted Cancer Surgery: Results of an SSO Member Survey

ASO Visual Abstract: Prognostic Impact of Tumor-Associated Macrophage-Related Markers in Patients with Adenocarcinoma of the Lung

ASO Author Reflections: Perioperative Systemic Chemotherapy in Diffuse Malignant Peritoneal Mesothelioma treated with CRS-HIPEC