Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Annals of Surgical Oncology 4/2014

01-04-2014 | Healthcare Policy and Outcomes

National Assessment of Margin Status as a Quality Indicator after Pancreatic Cancer Surgery

Authors: Ryan P. Merkow, MD, MS, Karl Y. Bilimoria, MD, MS, David J. Bentrem, MD, MS, Henry A. Pitt, MD, David P. Winchester, MD, Mitchell C. Posner, MD, Clifford Y. Ko, MD, MS, MSHS, Timothy M. Pawlik, MD, MPH, PhD

Published in: Annals of Surgical Oncology | Issue 4/2014

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Surgical margin involvement is an important outcome after pancreatic cancer surgery; however, variation in pathologic review practices may limit its use as a quality indicator. Our objectives were to assess variation in hospital performance and the reliability of margin involvement after pancreatic cancer surgery.

Methods

From the National Cancer Data Base, patients who underwent pancreatic resection for stage I to III adenocarcinoma were identified. Risk-adjusted surgical margin involvement was evaluated using hierarchical regression methods, and variation in hospital performance and reliability was determined.

Results

From 1,002 hospitals, 14,889 patients underwent pancreatic resection for adenocarcinoma, and 3,573 (24.0 %) had an involved surgical margin (R1 22.8 %; R2 1.2 %). The strongest predictors associated with margin involvement were T stage [T3: odds ratio (OR) 2.08, 95 % confidence interval (CI) 1.68–2.59; T4: OR 7.26, 95 % CI 5.50–9.60; vs. T1] and tumor size (2–3.9 cm: OR 1.66, 95 % CI 1.39–1.98, ≥4 cm: OR 2.28, 95 % CI 1.90–2.74; vs. <2 cm). Factors associated with a decreased likelihood of margin involvement were the use of neoadjuvant therapy and hospital type (academic and National Cancer Institute-designated comprehensive cancer centers vs. community). At the hospital level, the mean risk-adjusted surgical margin involvement rate was 25.9 % and ranged 10.1 to 50.5 %. Twenty-one (2.1 %) hospitals had lower-than-expected and 17 (1.7 %) had higher-than-expected margin involvement. A minimum acceptable reliability of 0.4 was met after 13 cases and was achieved by 249 hospitals that performed 79 % of pancreatic resections assessed.

Conclusions

Despite differences in pathologic evaluation practices, hospitals can be feasibly and reliably provided comparative data on surgical margin status after resection for pancreatic cancer.
Literature
1.
3.
go back to reference Hewitt ME, Simone JV, US National Cancer Policy Board. Ensuring quality cancer care. Washington: National Academies Press; 1999. Hewitt ME, Simone JV, US National Cancer Policy Board. Ensuring quality cancer care. Washington: National Academies Press; 1999.
4.
go back to reference Wasif N, Cormier JN, Ko CY, et al. Quality measurement in cancer care delivery. Ann Surg Oncol. 2011;18:611–8.PubMedCrossRef Wasif N, Cormier JN, Ko CY, et al. Quality measurement in cancer care delivery. Ann Surg Oncol. 2011;18:611–8.PubMedCrossRef
5.
go back to reference Spinks TE, Walters R, Feeley TW, et al. Improving cancer care through public reporting of meaningful quality measures. Health Aff (Millwood). 2011;30:664–72.PubMedCrossRef Spinks TE, Walters R, Feeley TW, et al. Improving cancer care through public reporting of meaningful quality measures. Health Aff (Millwood). 2011;30:664–72.PubMedCrossRef
6.
go back to reference Bilimoria KY, Bentrem DJ, Lillemoe KD, Talamonti MS, Ko CY. Assessment of pancreatic cancer care in the United States based on formally developed quality indicators. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2009;101:848–59.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef Bilimoria KY, Bentrem DJ, Lillemoe KD, Talamonti MS, Ko CY. Assessment of pancreatic cancer care in the United States based on formally developed quality indicators. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2009;101:848–59.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef
7.
go back to reference Adams RB, Allen PJ. Surgical treatment of resectable and borderline resectable pancreatic cancer: expert consensus statement by Evans et al. Ann Surg Oncol. 2009;16:1745–50.PubMedCrossRef Adams RB, Allen PJ. Surgical treatment of resectable and borderline resectable pancreatic cancer: expert consensus statement by Evans et al. Ann Surg Oncol. 2009;16:1745–50.PubMedCrossRef
8.
go back to reference Evans DB, Farnell MB, Lillemoe KD, Vollmer C Jr, Strasberg SM, Schulick RD. Surgical treatment of resectable and borderline resectable pancreas cancer: expert consensus statement. Ann Surg Oncol. 2009;16:1736–44.PubMedCrossRef Evans DB, Farnell MB, Lillemoe KD, Vollmer C Jr, Strasberg SM, Schulick RD. Surgical treatment of resectable and borderline resectable pancreas cancer: expert consensus statement. Ann Surg Oncol. 2009;16:1736–44.PubMedCrossRef
9.
go back to reference Bilimoria KY, Talamonti MS, Sener SF, et al. Effect of hospital volume on margin status after pancreaticoduodenectomy for cancer. J Am Coll Surg. 2008;207:510–9.PubMedCrossRef Bilimoria KY, Talamonti MS, Sener SF, et al. Effect of hospital volume on margin status after pancreaticoduodenectomy for cancer. J Am Coll Surg. 2008;207:510–9.PubMedCrossRef
10.
go back to reference Neoptolemos JP, Stocken DD, Dunn JA, et al. Influence of resection margins on survival for patients with pancreatic cancer treated by adjuvant chemoradiation and/or chemotherapy in the ESPAC-1 randomized controlled trial. Ann Surg. 2001;234:758–68.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef Neoptolemos JP, Stocken DD, Dunn JA, et al. Influence of resection margins on survival for patients with pancreatic cancer treated by adjuvant chemoradiation and/or chemotherapy in the ESPAC-1 randomized controlled trial. Ann Surg. 2001;234:758–68.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef
11.
go back to reference Konstantinidis IT, Warshaw AL, Allen JN, et al. Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma: is there a survival difference for R1 resections versus locally advanced unresectable tumors? What is a “true” R0 resection? Ann Surg. 2013;257:731–6.PubMedCrossRef Konstantinidis IT, Warshaw AL, Allen JN, et al. Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma: is there a survival difference for R1 resections versus locally advanced unresectable tumors? What is a “true” R0 resection? Ann Surg. 2013;257:731–6.PubMedCrossRef
12.
go back to reference Oettle H, Post S, Neuhaus P, et al. Adjuvant chemotherapy with gemcitabine vs observation in patients undergoing curative-intent resection of pancreatic cancer: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA. 2007;297:267–77.PubMedCrossRef Oettle H, Post S, Neuhaus P, et al. Adjuvant chemotherapy with gemcitabine vs observation in patients undergoing curative-intent resection of pancreatic cancer: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA. 2007;297:267–77.PubMedCrossRef
13.
go back to reference Verbeke CS, Gladhaug IP. Resection margin involvement and tumour origin in pancreatic head cancer. Br J Surg. 2012;99:1036–49.PubMedCrossRef Verbeke CS, Gladhaug IP. Resection margin involvement and tumour origin in pancreatic head cancer. Br J Surg. 2012;99:1036–49.PubMedCrossRef
14.
go back to reference Katz MH, Merchant NB, Brower S, et al. Standardization of surgical and pathologic variables is needed in multicenter trials of adjuvant therapy for pancreatic cancer: results from the ACOSOG Z5031 trial. Ann Surg Oncol. 2011;18:337–44.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef Katz MH, Merchant NB, Brower S, et al. Standardization of surgical and pathologic variables is needed in multicenter trials of adjuvant therapy for pancreatic cancer: results from the ACOSOG Z5031 trial. Ann Surg Oncol. 2011;18:337–44.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef
15.
go back to reference Hall BL, Hamilton BH, Richards K, Bilimoria KY, Cohen ME, Ko CY. Does surgical quality improve in the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program: an evaluation of all participating hospitals. Ann Surg. 2009;250:363–76.PubMed Hall BL, Hamilton BH, Richards K, Bilimoria KY, Cohen ME, Ko CY. Does surgical quality improve in the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program: an evaluation of all participating hospitals. Ann Surg. 2009;250:363–76.PubMed
16.
go back to reference Chassin MR. Achieving and sustaining improved quality: lessons from New York State and cardiac surgery. Health Aff (Millwood). 2002;21:40–51.PubMedCrossRef Chassin MR. Achieving and sustaining improved quality: lessons from New York State and cardiac surgery. Health Aff (Millwood). 2002;21:40–51.PubMedCrossRef
18.
go back to reference Bilimoria KY, Stewart AK, Winchester DP, Ko CY. The National Cancer Data Base: a powerful initiative to improve cancer care in the United States. Ann Surg Oncol. 2008;15:683–90.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef Bilimoria KY, Stewart AK, Winchester DP, Ko CY. The National Cancer Data Base: a powerful initiative to improve cancer care in the United States. Ann Surg Oncol. 2008;15:683–90.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef
19.
go back to reference Merkow RP, Bilimoria KY. Currently available quality improvement initiatives in surgical oncology. Surg Oncol Clin N Am. 2012;21:367–75.PubMedCrossRef Merkow RP, Bilimoria KY. Currently available quality improvement initiatives in surgical oncology. Surg Oncol Clin N Am. 2012;21:367–75.PubMedCrossRef
21.
go back to reference Fritz A, Percy C, Jack A, Shanmugarathnam K, Sobin L, Parkin DM, Whelan S, eds. International classification of disease for oncology. 3rd ed. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2000. Fritz A, Percy C, Jack A, Shanmugarathnam K, Sobin L, Parkin DM, Whelan S, eds. International classification of disease for oncology. 3rd ed. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2000.
22.
go back to reference American Joint Committee on Cancer. AJCC cancer staging manual. 7th ed. Chicago, Springer, 2010.CrossRef American Joint Committee on Cancer. AJCC cancer staging manual. 7th ed. Chicago, Springer, 2010.CrossRef
25.
go back to reference Cohen ME, Ko CY, Bilimoria KY, et al. Optimizing ACS NSQIP modeling for evaluation of surgical quality and risk: Patient risk adjustment, procedure mix adjustment, shrinkage adjustment, and surgical focus. J Am Coll Surg. 2013;217:336–346.PubMedCrossRef Cohen ME, Ko CY, Bilimoria KY, et al. Optimizing ACS NSQIP modeling for evaluation of surgical quality and risk: Patient risk adjustment, procedure mix adjustment, shrinkage adjustment, and surgical focus. J Am Coll Surg. 2013;217:336–346.PubMedCrossRef
27.
go back to reference Merkow RP, Hall BL, Cohen ME, et al. Validity and feasibility of the American College of Surgeons colectomy composite outcome quality measure. Ann Surg. 2013;257:483–9.PubMedCrossRef Merkow RP, Hall BL, Cohen ME, et al. Validity and feasibility of the American College of Surgeons colectomy composite outcome quality measure. Ann Surg. 2013;257:483–9.PubMedCrossRef
32.
33.
go back to reference Maksymov V, Hogan M, Khalifa MA. An anatomical-based mapping analysis of the pancreaticoduodenectomy retroperitoneal margin highlights the urgent need for standardized assessment. HPB. 2013;15:218–23.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef Maksymov V, Hogan M, Khalifa MA. An anatomical-based mapping analysis of the pancreaticoduodenectomy retroperitoneal margin highlights the urgent need for standardized assessment. HPB. 2013;15:218–23.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef
35.
go back to reference John BJ, Naik P, Ironside A, et al. Redefining the R1 resection for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma: tumour lymph nodal burden and lymph node ratio are the only prognostic factors associated with survival. HPB. 2013;15:674–80.PubMedCrossRef John BJ, Naik P, Ironside A, et al. Redefining the R1 resection for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma: tumour lymph nodal burden and lymph node ratio are the only prognostic factors associated with survival. HPB. 2013;15:674–80.PubMedCrossRef
36.
go back to reference Kimbrough CW, St Hill CR, Martin RC, McMasters KM, Scoggins CR. Tumor-positive resection margins reflect an aggressive tumor biology in pancreatic cancer. J Surg Oncol. 2013;107:602–7.PubMedCrossRef Kimbrough CW, St Hill CR, Martin RC, McMasters KM, Scoggins CR. Tumor-positive resection margins reflect an aggressive tumor biology in pancreatic cancer. J Surg Oncol. 2013;107:602–7.PubMedCrossRef
Metadata
Title
National Assessment of Margin Status as a Quality Indicator after Pancreatic Cancer Surgery
Authors
Ryan P. Merkow, MD, MS
Karl Y. Bilimoria, MD, MS
David J. Bentrem, MD, MS
Henry A. Pitt, MD
David P. Winchester, MD
Mitchell C. Posner, MD
Clifford Y. Ko, MD, MS, MSHS
Timothy M. Pawlik, MD, MPH, PhD
Publication date
01-04-2014
Publisher
Springer US
Published in
Annals of Surgical Oncology / Issue 4/2014
Print ISSN: 1068-9265
Electronic ISSN: 1534-4681
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-013-3338-2

Other articles of this Issue 4/2014

Annals of Surgical Oncology 4/2014 Go to the issue