Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29397658›Full record

ArticleCancer research and treatment2019

The Effect of Hospital Case Volume on Clinical Outcomes in Patients with Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma: A Multi-institutional Retrospective Analysis (KROG-1106).

Boram Ha, Kwan Ho Cho, Sung Ho Moon, Chang-Geol Lee, Ki Chang Keum, Yeon-Sil Kim, Hong-Gyun Wu, Jin Ho Kim, Yong Chan Ahn, Dongryul Oh and 11 more

Abstract readComparative StudyMulticenter Study
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Cancer research and treatment, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. A Comprehensive Analysis of Treatment Management and Survival Outcomes in Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma.Otolaryngology--head and neck surgery : official journal of American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery · 2021
    Article
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

21 authors.

Boram HaProton Therapy Center, Research Institute and Hospital, National Cancer Center, Goyang, Korea.
Kwan Ho ChoProton Therapy Center, Research Institute and Hospital, National Cancer Center, Goyang, Korea.
Sung Ho MoonProton Therapy Center, Research Institute and Hospital, National Cancer Center, Goyang, Korea.
Chang-Geol LeeDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.
Ki Chang KeumDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.
Yeon-Sil KimDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Seoul St. Mary's Hospital, College of Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea, Seoul, Korea.
Hong-Gyun WuDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.
Jin Ho KimDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.
Yong Chan AhnDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.
Dongryul OhDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.
Jae Myoung NohDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.
Jong Hoon LeeDepartment of Radiation Oncology, St. Vincent's Hospital, College of Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea, Suwon, Korea.
Sung Hwan KimDepartment of Radiation Oncology, St. Vincent's Hospital, College of Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea, Suwon, Korea.
Won Taek KimDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Pusan National University Hospital, Busan, Korea.
Young-Taek OhDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Ajou University School of Medicine, Suwon, Korea.
Min Kyu KangDepartment of Radiation Oncology, School of Medicine, Kyungpook National University, Daegu, Korea.
Jin Hee KimDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Dongsan Medical Center, Keimyung University School of Medicine, Daegu, Korea.
Ji-Yoon KimDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Yeouido St. Mary's Hospital, College of Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea, Seoul, Korea.
Moon-June ChoDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Chungnam National University School of Medicine, Daejeon, Korea.
Chul Seoung KayDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Incheon St. Mary's Hospital, College of Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea, Incheon, Korea.
Jin Hwa ChoiDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Chung-Ang University Hospital, Seoul, Korea.

Funding

Korean Radiation Oncology GroupNational Cancer Center 1610440
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThe purpose of this study was to investigate the effect of hospital case volume on clinical outcomes in patients with nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC). MATERIALS AND

methodsData on 1,073 patients with cT1-4N0-3M0 NPC were collected from a multi-institutional retrospective database (KROG 11-06). All patients received definitive radiotherapy (RT) either with three-dimensional-conformal RT (3D-CRT) (n=576) or intensity-modulated RT (IMRT) (n=497). The patients were divided into two groups treated at high volume institution (HVI) (n=750) and low volume institution (LVI) (n=323), defined as patient volume ≥ 10 (median, 13; range, 10 to 18) and < 10 patients per year (median, 3; range, 2 to 6), respectively. Endpoints were overall survival (OS) and loco-regional progression-free survival (LRPFS).

resultsAt a median follow-up of 56.7 months, the outcomes were significantly better in those treated at HVI than at LVI. For the 614 patients of propensity score-matched cohort, 5-year OS and LRPFS were consistently higher in the HVI group than in the LVI group (OS: 78.4% vs. 62.7%, p < 0.001; LRPFS: 86.2% vs. 65.8%, p < 0.001, respectively). According to RT modality, significant difference in 5-year OS was observed in patients receiving 3D-CRT (78.7% for HVI vs. 58.9% for LVI, p < 0.001) and not in those receiving IMRT (77.3% for HVI vs. 75.5% for LVI, p=0.170).

conclusionA significant relationship was observed between HVI and LVI for the clinical outcomes of patients with NPC. However, the difference in outcome becomes insignificant in the IMRT era, probably due to the standardization of practice by education.

Indexed as

AdultAgedAged, 80 and overDose Fractionation, RadiationFemaleHospitals, High-VolumeHospitals, Low-VolumeHumansMaleMiddle AgedNasopharyngeal CarcinomaNasopharyngeal NeoplasmsNeoplasm StagingPropensity ScoreRadiotherapy, ConformalRadiotherapy, Intensity-ModulatedHospitalIntensity-modulated radiotherapyLow- or high-volumeNasopharyngeal neoplasmsThree-dimensional conformal radiotherapyTreatment outcome

Identifiers

PMID29397658
PMCPMC6333987

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.