ReviewVisceral medicine2017
Minimum Volume Discussion in the Treatment of Colon and Rectal Cancer: A Review of the Current Status and Relevance of Surgeon and Hospital Volume regarding Result Quality and the Impact on Health Economics.
Review in Visceral medicine, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
10 citing papers in PubMed.
- Short-Term Surgical Outcomes of Curative Colorectal Resections from an Evolving Low-Volume Cancer Center in a Tier-2 City in India.Indian journal of surgical oncology · 2026Article
- Does surgeon or hospital volume influence outcome in dedicated colorectal units?-A Viennese perspective.Wiener klinische Wochenschrift · 2025Article
- Optimization of rectal cancer surgery outcomes in the United States: the influence of hospital volume on rates of sphincter preservation before and after practice standardization.Proceedings (Baylor University. Medical Center) · 2025Article
- Short-term surgical outcomes of rectal adenocarcinoma surgical treatment in Latin America: a multicenter, retrospective assessment in 49 centers from 12 countries.International journal of colorectal disease · 2024Observational
- Exploring 6 years of colorectal cancer surgery in rural Italy: insights from 648 consecutive patients unveiling successes and challenges.Updates in surgery · 2024Article
- What is the impact of hospital and surgeon volumes on outcomes in rectal cancer surgery?Colorectal disease : the official journal of the Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland · 2023Article
- Patterns of Care and Outcomes of Rectal Cancer Patients from the Iowa Cancer Registry: Role of Hospital Volume and Tumor Location.Journal of gastrointestinal surgery : official journal of the Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract · 2023Article
- Article
- Volume-outcome relationship in type A aortic dissection: crosswords or crossroads?Journal of thoracic disease · 2020Article
- Volume and Quality in Visceral Medicine.Visceral medicine · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTo answer the question whether minimum caseloads need to be stipulated in the German S3 (or any other) guidelines for colorectal cancer, we analyzed the current representative literature. The question is important regarding medical quality as well as health economics and policy.
methodsA literature research was conducted in PubMed for papers concerning 'colon cancer' (CC), 'rectal cancer' (RC), and 'colorectal cancer' (CRC), with 'results', 'quality', and 'mortality' between the years 2000 and 2016 being relevant factors. We graded the recommendations as 'pro', 'maybe', or 'contra' in terms of a significant correlation between hospital volume (HV) or surgeon volume (SV) and treatment quality. We also listed the recommended numbers suggested for HV or SV as minimum caseloads and calculated and discussed the socio-economic impact of setting minimum caseloads for CRC.
resultsThe correlations of caseloads of hospitals or surgeons turned out to be highly controversial concerning the influence of HV or SV on short- and long-term surgical treatment quality of CRC. Specialized statisticians made the point that the reports in the literature might not use the optimal biometrical analytical/reporting methods. A Dutch analysis showed that if a decision towards minimum caseloads, e.g. >50 for CRC resections, would be made, this would exclude a lot of hospitals with proven good treatment quality and include hospitals with a treatment quality below average. Our economic analysis envisioned that a yearly loss of EUR <830,000 might ensue for hospitals with volumes <50 per year.
conclusionsCaseload (HV, SV) definitely is an inconsistent surrogate parameter for treatment quality in the surgery of CC, RC, or CRC. If used at all, the lowest tolerable numbers but the highest demands for structural, process and result quality in the surgical/interdisciplinary treatment of CC and RC must be imposed and independently controlled. Hospitals fulfilling these demands should be medically and socio-economically preferred concerning the treatment of CC and RC patients.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.