Multi-institutional Care in Clinical Stage II and III Esophageal Cancer

Management of clinical stage II or III esophageal cancer requires multidisciplinary care. Multi-institutional care has been associated with worse survival in other malignant diseases. This study aimed to determine the impact of multi-institutional care on survival in patients with stage II or III es...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:The Annals of thoracic surgery 2023-02, Vol.115 (2), p.370-377
Hauptverfasser: Rhodin, Kristen E., Raman, Vignesh, Jensen, Christopher W., Kang, Lillian, Nussbaum, Daniel P., Tong, Betty C., Blazer, Dan G., D’Amico, Thomas A.
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 377
container_issue 2
container_start_page 370
container_title The Annals of thoracic surgery
container_volume 115
creator Rhodin, Kristen E.
Raman, Vignesh
Jensen, Christopher W.
Kang, Lillian
Nussbaum, Daniel P.
Tong, Betty C.
Blazer, Dan G.
D’Amico, Thomas A.
description Management of clinical stage II or III esophageal cancer requires multidisciplinary care. Multi-institutional care has been associated with worse survival in other malignant diseases. This study aimed to determine the impact of multi-institutional care on survival in patients with stage II or III esophageal cancer. The 2004 to 2016 National Cancer Database was queried for patients with clinical stage II or III esophageal cancer who received neoadjuvant chemotherapy with or without radiation therapy followed by surgical resection. Patients were stratified into 2 groups: multi-institutional or single-institution care. Survival between groups was compared using Kaplan-Meier and multivariable Cox proportional hazards methods. Multivariable logistic regression was performed to identify factors associated with multi-institutional care. Overall, 11 399 patients met study criteria: 6569 (57.6%) received multi-institutional care and 4,830 (42.4%) received care at a single institution. In a multivariable analysis, factors associated with multi-institutional care were later year of diagnosis, greater distance from treating facility, residence in an urban or rural setting (vs metro), and residence in states without Medicaid expansion. Care at a single institution was associated with Black race, lack of insurance, and treatment at higher-volume or academic centers. Despite these differences, patients who received multi-institutional care had survival comparable to that in patients who received care at a single institution (HR, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.92-1.03; P = .30). In this National Cancer Database analysis, multi-institutional care was not associated with inferior overall survival. As complex cancer care becomes more regionalized, patients may consider receiving part of their cancer care closer to home, whereas traveling to surgical centers of excellence should be encouraged. [Display omitted]
doi_str_mv 10.1016/j.athoracsur.2022.06.049
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>elsevier_pubme</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_9851933</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><els_id>S0003497522009729</els_id><sourcerecordid>S0003497522009729</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c479t-4c5774352246d6ad7aea81affe21cc872a530cca9d5b019479e215490f5f1dc83</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqFkN1OwyAUx4nRuDl9BdMXaOWjtOXGRJs5m8x4oV4TBnRj6egCdIlvL3M69cqrE87_45AfAAmCGYKouFlnIqx6J6QfXIYhxhksMpizEzBGlOK0wJSdgjGEkKQ5K-kIXHi_jk8c5XMwIrQqMSR0DGZPQxdMaqwPJgzB9FZ0SS2cToxN6s5YI-PiJYilTpomEVbF0SRT329XcfdptlK7S3DWis7rq685AW8P09f6MZ0_z5r6bp7KvGQhzSUty5xQjPNCFUKVQosKibbVGEkZPyUogVIKpugCIhYzUaA5gy1tkZIVmYDbQ-92WGy0ktoGJzq-dWYj3DvvheF_FWtWfNnvOKsoYoTEgupQIF3vvdPtMYsg38Pla_4Dl-_hcljwCDdGr3_fPga_aUbD_cGgI4Gd0Y57aXTEo4zTMnDVm_-vfABiF5FV</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Access Repository</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype></control><display><type>article</type><title>Multi-institutional Care in Clinical Stage II and III Esophageal Cancer</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals Complete</source><source>Alma/SFX Local Collection</source><source>EZB Electronic Journals Library</source><creator>Rhodin, Kristen E. ; Raman, Vignesh ; Jensen, Christopher W. ; Kang, Lillian ; Nussbaum, Daniel P. ; Tong, Betty C. ; Blazer, Dan G. ; D’Amico, Thomas A.</creator><creatorcontrib>Rhodin, Kristen E. ; Raman, Vignesh ; Jensen, Christopher W. ; Kang, Lillian ; Nussbaum, Daniel P. ; Tong, Betty C. ; Blazer, Dan G. ; D’Amico, Thomas A.</creatorcontrib><description>Management of clinical stage II or III esophageal cancer requires multidisciplinary care. Multi-institutional care has been associated with worse survival in other malignant diseases. This study aimed to determine the impact of multi-institutional care on survival in patients with stage II or III esophageal cancer. The 2004 to 2016 National Cancer Database was queried for patients with clinical stage II or III esophageal cancer who received neoadjuvant chemotherapy with or without radiation therapy followed by surgical resection. Patients were stratified into 2 groups: multi-institutional or single-institution care. Survival between groups was compared using Kaplan-Meier and multivariable Cox proportional hazards methods. Multivariable logistic regression was performed to identify factors associated with multi-institutional care. Overall, 11 399 patients met study criteria: 6569 (57.6%) received multi-institutional care and 4,830 (42.4%) received care at a single institution. In a multivariable analysis, factors associated with multi-institutional care were later year of diagnosis, greater distance from treating facility, residence in an urban or rural setting (vs metro), and residence in states without Medicaid expansion. Care at a single institution was associated with Black race, lack of insurance, and treatment at higher-volume or academic centers. Despite these differences, patients who received multi-institutional care had survival comparable to that in patients who received care at a single institution (HR, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.92-1.03; P = .30). In this National Cancer Database analysis, multi-institutional care was not associated with inferior overall survival. As complex cancer care becomes more regionalized, patients may consider receiving part of their cancer care closer to home, whereas traveling to surgical centers of excellence should be encouraged. [Display omitted]</description><identifier>ISSN: 0003-4975</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1552-6259</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1016/j.athoracsur.2022.06.049</identifier><identifier>PMID: 35872035</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Netherlands: Elsevier Inc</publisher><subject>Esophageal Neoplasms - therapy ; Humans ; Kaplan-Meier Estimate ; Neoadjuvant Therapy - methods ; Neoplasm Staging ; Proportional Hazards Models ; Retrospective Studies ; United States - epidemiology</subject><ispartof>The Annals of thoracic surgery, 2023-02, Vol.115 (2), p.370-377</ispartof><rights>2023 The Society of Thoracic Surgeons</rights><rights>Copyright © 2023 The Society of Thoracic Surgeons. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c479t-4c5774352246d6ad7aea81affe21cc872a530cca9d5b019479e215490f5f1dc83</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c479t-4c5774352246d6ad7aea81affe21cc872a530cca9d5b019479e215490f5f1dc83</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.athoracsur.2022.06.049$$EHTML$$P50$$Gelsevier$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,314,780,784,885,3550,27924,27925,45995</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35872035$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Rhodin, Kristen E.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Raman, Vignesh</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Jensen, Christopher W.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kang, Lillian</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Nussbaum, Daniel P.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Tong, Betty C.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Blazer, Dan G.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>D’Amico, Thomas A.</creatorcontrib><title>Multi-institutional Care in Clinical Stage II and III Esophageal Cancer</title><title>The Annals of thoracic surgery</title><addtitle>Ann Thorac Surg</addtitle><description>Management of clinical stage II or III esophageal cancer requires multidisciplinary care. Multi-institutional care has been associated with worse survival in other malignant diseases. This study aimed to determine the impact of multi-institutional care on survival in patients with stage II or III esophageal cancer. The 2004 to 2016 National Cancer Database was queried for patients with clinical stage II or III esophageal cancer who received neoadjuvant chemotherapy with or without radiation therapy followed by surgical resection. Patients were stratified into 2 groups: multi-institutional or single-institution care. Survival between groups was compared using Kaplan-Meier and multivariable Cox proportional hazards methods. Multivariable logistic regression was performed to identify factors associated with multi-institutional care. Overall, 11 399 patients met study criteria: 6569 (57.6%) received multi-institutional care and 4,830 (42.4%) received care at a single institution. In a multivariable analysis, factors associated with multi-institutional care were later year of diagnosis, greater distance from treating facility, residence in an urban or rural setting (vs metro), and residence in states without Medicaid expansion. Care at a single institution was associated with Black race, lack of insurance, and treatment at higher-volume or academic centers. Despite these differences, patients who received multi-institutional care had survival comparable to that in patients who received care at a single institution (HR, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.92-1.03; P = .30). In this National Cancer Database analysis, multi-institutional care was not associated with inferior overall survival. As complex cancer care becomes more regionalized, patients may consider receiving part of their cancer care closer to home, whereas traveling to surgical centers of excellence should be encouraged. [Display omitted]</description><subject>Esophageal Neoplasms - therapy</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Kaplan-Meier Estimate</subject><subject>Neoadjuvant Therapy - methods</subject><subject>Neoplasm Staging</subject><subject>Proportional Hazards Models</subject><subject>Retrospective Studies</subject><subject>United States - epidemiology</subject><issn>0003-4975</issn><issn>1552-6259</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2023</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNqFkN1OwyAUx4nRuDl9BdMXaOWjtOXGRJs5m8x4oV4TBnRj6egCdIlvL3M69cqrE87_45AfAAmCGYKouFlnIqx6J6QfXIYhxhksMpizEzBGlOK0wJSdgjGEkKQ5K-kIXHi_jk8c5XMwIrQqMSR0DGZPQxdMaqwPJgzB9FZ0SS2cToxN6s5YI-PiJYilTpomEVbF0SRT329XcfdptlK7S3DWis7rq685AW8P09f6MZ0_z5r6bp7KvGQhzSUty5xQjPNCFUKVQosKibbVGEkZPyUogVIKpugCIhYzUaA5gy1tkZIVmYDbQ-92WGy0ktoGJzq-dWYj3DvvheF_FWtWfNnvOKsoYoTEgupQIF3vvdPtMYsg38Pla_4Dl-_hcljwCDdGr3_fPga_aUbD_cGgI4Gd0Y57aXTEo4zTMnDVm_-vfABiF5FV</recordid><startdate>20230201</startdate><enddate>20230201</enddate><creator>Rhodin, Kristen E.</creator><creator>Raman, Vignesh</creator><creator>Jensen, Christopher W.</creator><creator>Kang, Lillian</creator><creator>Nussbaum, Daniel P.</creator><creator>Tong, Betty C.</creator><creator>Blazer, Dan G.</creator><creator>D’Amico, Thomas A.</creator><general>Elsevier Inc</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>5PM</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20230201</creationdate><title>Multi-institutional Care in Clinical Stage II and III Esophageal Cancer</title><author>Rhodin, Kristen E. ; Raman, Vignesh ; Jensen, Christopher W. ; Kang, Lillian ; Nussbaum, Daniel P. ; Tong, Betty C. ; Blazer, Dan G. ; D’Amico, Thomas A.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c479t-4c5774352246d6ad7aea81affe21cc872a530cca9d5b019479e215490f5f1dc83</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2023</creationdate><topic>Esophageal Neoplasms - therapy</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Kaplan-Meier Estimate</topic><topic>Neoadjuvant Therapy - methods</topic><topic>Neoplasm Staging</topic><topic>Proportional Hazards Models</topic><topic>Retrospective Studies</topic><topic>United States - epidemiology</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Rhodin, Kristen E.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Raman, Vignesh</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Jensen, Christopher W.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kang, Lillian</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Nussbaum, Daniel P.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Tong, Betty C.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Blazer, Dan G.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>D’Amico, Thomas A.</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><jtitle>The Annals of thoracic surgery</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Rhodin, Kristen E.</au><au>Raman, Vignesh</au><au>Jensen, Christopher W.</au><au>Kang, Lillian</au><au>Nussbaum, Daniel P.</au><au>Tong, Betty C.</au><au>Blazer, Dan G.</au><au>D’Amico, Thomas A.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Multi-institutional Care in Clinical Stage II and III Esophageal Cancer</atitle><jtitle>The Annals of thoracic surgery</jtitle><addtitle>Ann Thorac Surg</addtitle><date>2023-02-01</date><risdate>2023</risdate><volume>115</volume><issue>2</issue><spage>370</spage><epage>377</epage><pages>370-377</pages><issn>0003-4975</issn><eissn>1552-6259</eissn><abstract>Management of clinical stage II or III esophageal cancer requires multidisciplinary care. Multi-institutional care has been associated with worse survival in other malignant diseases. This study aimed to determine the impact of multi-institutional care on survival in patients with stage II or III esophageal cancer. The 2004 to 2016 National Cancer Database was queried for patients with clinical stage II or III esophageal cancer who received neoadjuvant chemotherapy with or without radiation therapy followed by surgical resection. Patients were stratified into 2 groups: multi-institutional or single-institution care. Survival between groups was compared using Kaplan-Meier and multivariable Cox proportional hazards methods. Multivariable logistic regression was performed to identify factors associated with multi-institutional care. Overall, 11 399 patients met study criteria: 6569 (57.6%) received multi-institutional care and 4,830 (42.4%) received care at a single institution. In a multivariable analysis, factors associated with multi-institutional care were later year of diagnosis, greater distance from treating facility, residence in an urban or rural setting (vs metro), and residence in states without Medicaid expansion. Care at a single institution was associated with Black race, lack of insurance, and treatment at higher-volume or academic centers. Despite these differences, patients who received multi-institutional care had survival comparable to that in patients who received care at a single institution (HR, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.92-1.03; P = .30). In this National Cancer Database analysis, multi-institutional care was not associated with inferior overall survival. As complex cancer care becomes more regionalized, patients may consider receiving part of their cancer care closer to home, whereas traveling to surgical centers of excellence should be encouraged. [Display omitted]</abstract><cop>Netherlands</cop><pub>Elsevier Inc</pub><pmid>35872035</pmid><doi>10.1016/j.athoracsur.2022.06.049</doi><tpages>8</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0003-4975
ispartof The Annals of thoracic surgery, 2023-02, Vol.115 (2), p.370-377
issn 0003-4975
1552-6259
language eng
recordid cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_9851933
source MEDLINE; Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals Complete; Alma/SFX Local Collection; EZB Electronic Journals Library
subjects Esophageal Neoplasms - therapy
Humans
Kaplan-Meier Estimate
Neoadjuvant Therapy - methods
Neoplasm Staging
Proportional Hazards Models
Retrospective Studies
United States - epidemiology
title Multi-institutional Care in Clinical Stage II and III Esophageal Cancer
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-07T14%3A49%3A30IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-elsevier_pubme&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Multi-institutional%20Care%20in%20Clinical%20Stage%20II%20and%20III%20Esophageal%20Cancer&rft.jtitle=The%20Annals%20of%20thoracic%20surgery&rft.au=Rhodin,%20Kristen%20E.&rft.date=2023-02-01&rft.volume=115&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=370&rft.epage=377&rft.pages=370-377&rft.issn=0003-4975&rft.eissn=1552-6259&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016/j.athoracsur.2022.06.049&rft_dat=%3Celsevier_pubme%3ES0003497522009729%3C/elsevier_pubme%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_id=info:pmid/35872035&rft_els_id=S0003497522009729&rfr_iscdi=true