ArticleJAMA network open2019
Differential Safety Between Top-Ranked Cancer Hospitals and Their Affiliates for Complex Cancer Surgery.
Article in JAMA network open, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 32 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
32 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 42 citations in OpenAlex.
- Pooled it
- [Surgical treatment of esophageal cancer-Indicators for quality in diagnostics and treatment].Der Chirurg; Zeitschrift fur alle Gebiete der operativen Medizen · 2021Pooled it
- Where You Live and Where You Are Treated: Addressing Disparities in Esophageal Adenocarcinoma.Annals of surgical oncology · 2026Article
- Guiding Principles of Integrated Cancer Care Delivery Within a Regional Health System.The Journal of surgical research · 2026Article
- Invited Commentary: Capturing the Patient Perspective: The Missing Voice in the World of Hospital Expansion.Journal of the American College of Surgeons · 2026Article
- Patient Preferences for Cancer Care Within Hub-and-Spoke Networks: A Discrete Choice Experiment.Journal of the American College of Surgeons · 2026Article
- A survey of cancer affiliate network hubs in the US: goals, composition, resources, and evaluation.Cancer causes & control : CCC · 2025Article
- An Ecologic Analysis of the Association of Regional Cancer Center Presence with Cancer Mortality for the Continuous United States.Cancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology · 2025Article
- The Good and Bad of Regionalizing Colon Cancer Care.Clinics in colon and rectal surgery · 2025Review
- Patterns of Referral for Common Cancer Surgery in the United States.Annals of surgical oncology · 2025Article
- Patient preferences for location of cancer surgery in a community cancer affiliate network.Surgery · 2025Article
- Current Considerations in Nonoperative Surveillance of Intraductal Papillary Mucinous Neoplasms.Digestive disease interventions · 2025Article
- Caseload per Year in Robotic-Assisted Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy: A Narrative Review.Cancers · 2024Review
- Oncologic Surgery in the United States: Do You Get What You Pay For?Annals of surgical oncology · 2024Article
- Health-care organization characteristics in cancer care delivery: an integrated conceptual framework with content validation.Journal of the National Cancer Institute · 2024Article
- Mortality Among Older Medical Patients at Flagship Hospitals and Their Affiliates.Journal of general internal medicine · 2024Article
- Quality of breast surgery care at a comprehensive cancer center and its rural affiliate hospital.American journal of surgery · 2024Article
- Hub and spoke framework for study of surgical centralization within United States health systems.American journal of surgery · 2023Article
- Assessment of a collaborative treatment model for trimodal management of esophageal cancer.Journal of thoracic disease · 2023Article
- Evaluating the implementation of robotic thoracic surgery on a Veterans Administration Hospital.Journal of robotic surgery · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
9 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Importance: Leading cancer hospitals have increasingly shared their brands with other hospitals through growing networks of affiliations. However, the brand of top-ranked cancer hospitals may evoke distinct reputations for safety and quality that do not extend to all hospitals within these networks. Objective: To assess perioperative mortality of Medicare beneficiaries after complex cancer surgery across hospitals participating in networks with top-ranked cancer hospitals. Design, Setting, and Participants: A cross-sectional study was performed of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services 100% Medicare Provider and Analysis Review file from January 1, 2013, to December 31, 2016, for top-ranked cancer hospitals (as assessed by U.S. News and World Report) and affiliated hospitals that share their brand. Participants were 29 228 Medicare beneficiaries older than 65 years who underwent complex cancer surgery (lobectomy, esophagectomy, gastrectomy, colectomy, and pancreaticoduodenectomy [Whipple procedure]) between January 1, 2013, and October 1, 2016. Exposures: Undergoing complex cancer surgery at a top-ranked cancer hospital vs an affiliated hospital. Main Outcomes and Measures: Risk-adjusted 90-day mortality estimated using hierarchical logistic regression and comparison of the relative safety of hospitals within each cancer network estimated using standardized mortality ratios. Results: A total of 17 300 patients (59.2%; 8612 women and 8688 men; mean [SD] age, 74.7 [6.2] years) underwent complex cancer surgery at 59 top-ranked hospitals and 11 928 patients (40.8%; 6287 women and 5641 men; mean [SD] age, 76.2 [6.9] years) underwent complex cancer surgery at 343 affiliated hospitals. Overall, surgery performed at affiliated hospitals was associated with higher 90-day mortality (odds ratio, 1.40; 95% CI, 1.23-1.59; P < .001), with odds ratios that ranged from 1.32 (95% CI, 1.12-1.56; P = .001) for colectomy to 2.04 (95% CI, 1.41-2.95; P < .001) for gastrectomy. When the relative safety of each top-ranked cancer hospital was compared with its collective affiliates, the top-ranked hospital was safer than the affiliates in 41 of 49 studied networks (83.7%; 95% CI, 73.1%-93.3%). Conclusions and Relevance: The likelihood of surviving complex cancer surgery appears to be greater at top-ranked cancer hospitals compared with the affiliated hospitals that share their brand. Further investigation of performance across trusted cancer networks could enhance informed decision making for complex cancer care.
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.