Oncology/Genetics| Volume 161, ISSUE 2, P433-443, February 2017

Patient characteristics associated with undergoing cancer operations at low-volume hospitals

Published:August 30, 2016DOI:


      Although strong volume-outcome relationships exist for many cancer operations, patients continue to undergo these operations at low-volume hospitals.


      Patients were identified from the National Cancer Data Base from 2010–2013 who underwent resection for bladder, breast, esophagus, lung, pancreas, rectum, and stomach cancers. Low-volume hospitals were defined as those in the bottom quartile by surgical volume for each cancer type separately. Logistic regression models were constructed to assess patient-level factors associated with undergoing cancer surgery at low-volume hospitals across cancer types while controlling for tumor characteristics. Survival outcomes (30- and 90-day mortality; overall survival) were also assessed.


      Low volume thresholds were 4, 84, 4, 18, 8, 7, and 4 resections per year for bladder, breast, esophagus, lung, pancreas, rectum, and stomach cancers, respectively, resulting in 772 (74.1%), 828 (57.5%), 664 (77.5%), 830 (64.7%), 716 (79.2%), 898 (65.1%), and 888 (68.5%) hospitals classified as low-volume hospitals, respectively. For all the cancers examined, patients were more likely to undergo operation at low-volume hospitals if they traveled shorter distances (home to surgical facility), resided in rural locations, or had not received neoadjuvant therapy. Other patient and tumor factors were not associated consistently with undergoing operation at low-volume hospitals. Patients who went to low-volume hospitals had poorer outcomes among the studied cancers.


      Patients continue to undergo operation at low-volume hospitals due to where they live and how far they have to travel. Regionalization policy initiatives will remain challenging in this population. Efforts should therefore continue to emphasize quality improvement locally at each facility caring for patients with cancer.
      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'


      Subscribe to Surgery
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect


        • Urbach D.R.
        Pledging to eliminate low-volume surgery.
        N Engl J Med. 2015; 373: 1388-1390
        • O'Sullivan M.
        Safety in numbers: cancer surgeries in California hospitals.
        California HealthCare Foundation, Sacramento, CA2015
        • Spinks T.
        • Albright H.W.
        • Feeley T.W.
        • Walters R.
        • Burke T.W.
        • Aloia T.
        • et al.
        Ensuring quality cancer care: a follow-up review of the Institute of Medicine's 10 recommendations for improving the quality of cancer care in America.
        Cancer. 2012; 118: 2571-2582
        • Halm E.A.
        • Lee C.
        • Chassin M.R.
        Is volume related to outcome in health care? A systematic review and methodologic critique of the literature.
        Ann Intern Med. 2002; 137: 511-520
        • Al-Refaie W.B.
        • Muluneh B.
        • Zhong W.
        • Parsons H.M.
        • Tuttle T.M.
        • Vickers S.M.
        • et al.
        Who receives their complex cancer surgery at low-volume hospitals?.
        J Am Coll Surg. 2012; 214: 81-87
        • Liu J.H.
        • Zingmond D.S.
        • McGory M.L.
        • SooHoo N.F.
        • Ettner S.L.
        • Brook R.H.
        • et al.
        Disparities in the utilization of high-volume hospitals for complex surgery.
        JAMA. 2006; 296: 1973-1980
        • Birkmeyer J.D.
        • Siewers A.E.
        • Marth N.J.
        • Goodman D.C.
        Regionalization of high-risk surgery and implications for patient travel times.
        JAMA. 2003; 290: 2703-2708
        • Alvino D.M.
        • Chang D.C.
        • Adler J.T.
        • Noorbakhsh A.
        • Jin G.
        • Mullen J.T.
        How far are patients willing to travel for gastrectomy?.
        Ann Surg. 2016; (Article in Press)
        • Bilimoria K.Y.
        • Stewart A.K.
        • Winchester D.P.
        • Ko C.Y.
        The National Cancer Data Base: a powerful initiative to improve cancer care in the United States.
        Ann Surg Oncol. 2008; 15: 683-690
        • Winchester D.P.
        • Stewart A.K.
        • Bura C.
        • Jones R.S.
        The National Cancer Data Base: a clinical surveillance and quality improvement tool.
        J Surg Oncol. 2004; 85: 1-3
      1. North American Association of Central Cancer Registries Standards for Cancer Registries: Data Standards and Data Dictionary, version 16, volume II. 2015 (Springfield, IL
      2. Commission on Cancer Facility Oncology Registry Data Standards (FORDS). American College of Surgeons, Chicago, IL2015
        • American Joint Committee on Cancer
        AJCC cancer staging manual.
        7th ed. American College of Surgeons, Chicago, IL2010
        • Deyo R.A.
        • Cherkin D.C.
        • Ciol M.A.
        Adapting a clinical comorbidity index for use with ICD-9-CM administrative databases.
        J Clin Epidemiol. 1992; 45: 613-619
        • Elixhauser A.
        • Steiner C.
        • Harris D.R.
        • Coffey R.M.
        Comorbidity measures for use with administrative data.
        Med Care. 1998; 36: 8-27
        • American College of Surgeons
        Cancer program categories.
        American College of Surgeons, Chicago, IL2016
        • Fortney J.
        • Rost K.
        • Warren J.
        Comparing alternative methods of measuring geographic access to health services.
        Health Serv Outcome Res Meth. 2000; 1: 173-184
        • Wasif N.
        • Chang Y.H.
        • Pockaj B.A.
        • Gray R.J.
        • Mathur A.
        • Etzioni D.
        Association of distance traveled for surgery with short- and long-term cancer outcomes.
        Ann Surg Oncol. 2016; 23: 3444-3452
        • Birkmeyer J.D.
        • Siewers A.E.
        • Finlayson E.V.
        • Stukel T.A.
        • Lucas F.L.
        • Batista I.
        • et al.
        Hospital volume and surgical mortality in the United States.
        N Engl J Med. 2002; 346: 1128-1137
      3. Yim C. Imputing missing data using SAS. SAS Global Forum 2015 proceedings. Dallas, TX. April 26-29, 2015:Paper 3295–2015.

      4. Allison P. Handling missing data by maximum likelihood. SAS Global Forum 2012: statistics and data analysis. Orlando, FL. April 22-25, 2012:Paper 312–2012.

        • Epstein A.J.
        • Gray B.H.
        • Schlesinger M.
        Racial and ethnic differences in the use of high-volume hospitals and surgeons.
        Arch Surg. 2010; 145: 179-186
        • Witt W.P.
        • Coffey R.M.
        • Lopez-Gonzalez L.
        • Barrett M.L.
        • Moore B.J.
        • Andrews R.M.
        • et al.
        Understanding racial and ethnic disparities in postsurgical complications occurring in U.S. hospitals.
        Health Serv Res. 2016; (Article in Press)
        • Rastogi S.
        • Johnson T.D.
        • Hoeffel E.M.
        • Drewery Jr., M.P.
        The black population: 2010.
        in: Bureau U.C. 2010 Census Briefs. US Department of Commerce, Washington, DC2011
        • Stitzenberg K.B.
        • Sigurdson E.R.
        • Egleston B.L.
        • Starkey R.B.
        • Meropol N.J.
        Centralization of cancer surgery: implications for patient access to optimal care.
        J Clin Oncol. 2009; 27: 4671-4678
        • Finley C.
        • Schneider L.
        • Shakeel S.
        • Akhtar-Danesh N.
        • Elit L.
        • Dixon E.
        • et al.
        Canadian Partnership Against Cancer Approaches to high-risk, resource intensive cancer surgical care in canada. Canadian Partnership Against Cancer, Toronto, Ontario, Canada2015 (ISBN 978-1-988000-04-6)
        • Schwartz D.M.
        • Fong Z.V.
        • Warshaw A.L.
        • Zinner M.J.
        • Chang D.C.
        The Hidden consequences of the Volume Pledge: “no patient left behind”?.
        Ann Surg. 2016; (Article in Press)
        • Finlayson S.R.
        • Birkmeyer J.D.
        • Tosteson A.N.
        • Nease Jr., R.F.
        Patient preferences for location of care: implications for regionalization.
        Med Care. 1999; 37: 204-209

      Linked Article