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.

Association of Hospital Volume With Quality Care Outcomes Following Minor and Major Hepatectomy for Primary Liver Cancer

Laparoscopic Versus Open Major Hepatectomy For Hepatocellular Carcinoma: A Meta-Analysis

Laparoscopic Versus Open Surgery for Hepatocellular Carcinoma: A Meta-Analysis of High-Quality Case-Matched Studies

Meta-analysis of efficacy of laparoscopic hepatectomy versus open hepatectomy for hepatocarcinoma.

Impact of hospital volume and facility characteristics on postoperative outcomes after hepatectomy: A mediation analysis

Association of hospital volume and long-term survival after esophagectomy: A systematic review and meta-analysis

The Volume-Outcomes Effect in Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Surgery: Hospital Versus Surgeon Contributions and Specificity of the Relationship

Comparing Outcomes of Minimally Invasive and Open Hepatectomy for Primary Liver Malignancies in Patients with Low-MELD Cirrhosis

Impact of Major Hepatectomy on Recurrence after Resection of Hepatocellular Carcinoma at CNLC Ib Stage: a Propensity Score Matching Study.

Perioperative outcomes after hepatectomy for hepatocellular carcinoma among patients with cirrhosis, fatty liver disease, and clinically normal livers

Short‐ and long‐term outcomes of liver resection with hepatic vein reconstruction for liver tumors: A nationwide multicenter survey

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

Surgical and Oncological Outcomes after Laparoscopic Vs. Open Major Hepatectomy for Hepatocellular Carcinoma: a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Association of Hospital Procedure Volume and Outcomes in Patients with Colon Cancer at High Risk for Recurrence

Multicentre evaluation of case volume in minimally invasive hepatectomy

Outcomes following laparoscopic versus open major hepatectomy: a meta-analysis

Risk Factors for Patients with Hepatocellular Carcinoma and Liver Cirrhosis Who Underwent Major Hepatectomy

Hospital Surgical Volume Is Poorly Correlated With Delivery of Multimodal Treatment for Localized Pancreatic Cancer

Hospital volume-mortality association after esophagectomy for cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Outcomes following laparoscopic versus open major hepatectomy for hepatocellular carcinoma in patients with cirrhosis: a propensity score-matched analysis

Does the Surgical Approach Affect the Incidence of Post-Hepatectomy Liver Failure in Cirrhotic Patients? An Analysis of the NSQIP Database