Abstract:Background: A large body of evidence supports regionalization of complex oncologic surgery to high-volume surgeons at high-volume hospitals. However, whether there is heterogeneity of outcomes among high-volume surgeons at high-volume hospitals remains unknown. Methods: Patients who underwent esophagectomy, lung resection, pancreatectomy, or proctectomy for primary cancer were identified within the Medicare 100% Standard Analytic File (2013-2017). Mixed-effects analyses assessed the association between Leapfrog annual volume standards for surgeons (esophagectomy ≥7, lung resection ≥15, pancreatectomy ≥10, proctectomy ≥6) and hospitals (esophagectomy ≥20, lung resection ≥40, pancreatectomy ≥20, proctectomy ≥16) relative to postoperative complications and 90-day mortality. Additional analyses using New York's all-payer Statewide Planning and Research Cooperative System (2004-2015) were performed. Results: Among 112,154 Medicare beneficiaries, high-volume surgeons at high-volume hospitals were associated with lower adjusted odds of complications (esophagectomy: odds ratio [OR], 0.73 [95% CI, 0.61-0.86]; lung resection: OR, 0.88 [95% CI, 0.82-0.94]; pancreatectomy: OR, 0.73 [95% CI, 0.66-0.80]; proctectomy: OR, 0.92 [95% CI, 0.85-0.99]) and 90-day mortality (esophagectomy: OR, 0.60 [95% CI, 0.44-0.76]; lung resection: OR, 0.82 [95% CI, 0.73-0.93]; pancreatectomy: OR, 0.66 [95% CI, 0.56-0.76]; proctectomy: OR, 0.74 [95% CI, 0.65-0.85]). For the average patient at the average high-volume hospital, there was a 2-fold difference in the adjusted complication rate between the best-performing and worst-performing high-volume surgeon for all operations (esophagectomy, 28%-55%; lung resection, 7%-21%; pancreatectomy, 16%-35%; proctectomy, 16%-28%). Wide variation was also present in adjusted 90-day mortality for esophagectomy (3.5%-9.3%). Results from New York's all-payer database were similar. Conclusions: Even among high-volume surgeons meeting the Leapfrog volume standards, wide variation in postoperative outcomes exists. These findings suggest that volume alone should not be used as a quality indicator, and quality metrics should be continuously evaluated across all surgeons and hospital systems. Lay summary: Previous studies have demonstrated a surgical volume-outcome relationship for high-risk operations-that is high-volume surgeons and hospitals that perform a specific surgical procedure more frequently have better outcomes for that operation. Although most high-volume surgeons had better outcomes, this study demonstrated that some high-volume surgeons did not have better outcomes. Therefore, volume is an important factor but should not be the only factor considered when assessing the quality of a surgeon and a hospital for cancer surgery.

Are all high-volume surgeons equally good outcome? A survival analysis of patients with oral cavity squamous cell carcinoma in relation to surgical margin status based on …

Optimizing margin status for improving prognosis in patients with oral cavity squamous cell carcinoma: A retrospective study from the two highest-volume Taiwanese hospitals

Should sub-millimeter margins be deemed positive in oral cavity squamous cell carcinoma?

Adequate surgical margins for oral cancer: A Taiwan cancer registry national database analysis

Comparing the clinical outcomes of initial surgery and primary definitive radiotherapy with a dosage of 6600 cGy or higher in cT1−2N0M0 oral cavity squamous cell carcinoma: A nationwide cohort study

Clinical Outcomes of Taiwanese Patients with Resected Oral Cavity Squamous Cell Carcinoma Who Underwent Reconstruction with Free Versus Local Flaps

Variation in outcomes across surgeons meeting the Leapfrog volume standard for complex oncologic surgery

Margin to depth of invasion ratio as an indicator for stratifying close margins in early-stage oral squamous cell carcinoma

The impact of surgical resection margins on outcomes for adults with head and neck osteosarcomas: A Canadian sarcoma research and Clinical Collaboration (CanSaRCC) study

Prognosis of tongue squamous cell carcinoma associated with individual surgical margin and pathological features

Analysis of prognostic factors through survival rate analysis of oral squamous cell carcinoma patients treated at the National Cancer Center: 20 years of experience

The impact of intraoperative frozen section analysis on final resection margin status, recurrence, and patient outcome with oral squamous cell carcinoma

Narrow-Margin Hepatectomy Resulted in Higher Recurrence and Lower Overall Survival for R0 Resection Hepatocellular Carcinoma

The Influence of Mild Dysplasia at the Surgical Margin on the Prognosis of Oral Squamous Cell Carcinoma

Oncologic Safety of Close Margins in Patients With Low- to Intermediate-Grade Major Salivary Gland Carcinoma

Oral Cavity Squamous Cell Carcinoma: Impact of Clear Margin Distance on Locoregional Control in Patients Undergoing Postoperative Radiotherapy

Prognostic factors in oral cancer surgery - results from a UK tertiary centre

Clinical Versus Histologic Margins for Cutaneous Squamous Cell Carcinoma: Comparing Outcomes for High-Risk Tumors Treated With Mohs Micrographic Surgery

Positive Association of Gastric Cancer Surgery Outcome with Surgeon Specialization in a Shanghai High-Volume General Hospital.

Overall and disease-specific survival outcomes following primary surgery for oral squamous cell carcinoma: analysis of consecutive 67 patients

Comprehensive survival analysis of oral squamous cell carcinoma patients undergoing initial radical surgery