ArticleChest2021
Institutional-Level Differences in Quality and Outcomes of Lung Cancer Resections in the United States.
Article in Chest, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 19 citations in OpenAlex.
- Surgical Trainee Familiarity and Knowledge of the Commission on Cancer Operative Standards: A National Survey Study.Journal of the American College of Surgeons · 2026Article
- Early compliance with lung cancer lymph node standard 5.8: An analysis of 2022 and 2023 Commission on Cancer site reviews.The Journal of thoracic and cardiovascular surgery · 2025Article
- Segmentectomy Versus Lobectomy in Early Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: A Population-Based Analysis in Northern Italy.Thoracic cancer · 2025Article
- Short-term mortality after opioid initiation among opioid-naïve and non-naïve patients with dementia: a retrospective cohort study.BMC medicine · 2025Article
- Safety and efficacy of the HilumDirect uVATS for small cell lung cancer: a retrospective study.Frontiers in surgery · 2025Article
- The Role of Sublobar Resection for the Surgical Treatment of Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2023Review
- Surgeon Quality and Patient Survival After Resection for Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer.Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology · 2023Article
- Institution-Level Evolution of Lung Cancer Resection Quality With Implementation of a Lymph Node Specimen Collection Kit.Journal of thoracic oncology : official publication of the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer · 2023Article
- Rates of Guideline-Concordant Surgery and Adjuvant Chemotherapy Among Patients With Early-Stage Lung Cancer in the US ALCHEMIST Study (Alliance A151216).JAMA oncology · 2022Article
- Outcomes After Use of a Lymph Node Collection Kit for Lung Cancer Surgery: A Pragmatic, Population-Based, Multi-Institutional, Staggered Implementation Study.Journal of thoracic oncology : official publication of the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer · 2021Article
- Impact of a Lymph Node Specimen Collection Kit on the Distribution and Survival Implications of the Proposed Revised Lung Cancer Residual Disease Classification: A Propensity-Matched Analysis.JTO clinical and research reports · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundInstitutional-level disparities in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) survival may be driven by reversible differences in care-delivery processes. We quantified the impact of differences in readily identifiable quality metrics on long-term survival disparities in resected NSCLC. RESEARCH QUESTION: How do reversible differences in oncologic quality of care contribute to institutional-level disparities in early-stage NSCLC survival? STUDY DESIGN AND
methodsWe retrospectively analyzed patients in the National Cancer Data Base who underwent NSCLC resection from 2004 through 2015 within institutions categorized as Community, Comprehensive Community, Integrated Network, Academic, and National Cancer Institute (NCI)-Designated Cancer Programs. We estimated percentages and adjusted ORs for six potentially avoidable poor-quality markers: incomplete resection, nonexamination of lymph nodes, nonanatomic resection, non-evidence-based use of adjuvant chemotherapy, non-evidence-based use of adjuvant radiation therapy, and 60-day postoperative mortality. By sequentially eliminating patients with poor-quality markers and calculating adjusted hazard ratios, we quantified their overall survival impact.
resultsOf 169,775 patients, 7%, 46%, 10%, 24%, and 12% underwent surgery at Community, Comprehensive Community, Integrated Network, Academic, and NCI-Designated Cancer Programs, with 5-year overall survival rates of 52%, 56%, 58%, 60% and 66%, respectively. After the sequential elimination process, using NCI-Designated Cancer Centers as a reference, the adjusted hazard ratio for 5-year overall survival changed from 1.47 (95% CI, 1.41-1.53), 1.29 (95% CI, 1.25-1.33), 1.18 (95% CI, 1.14-1.23), and 1.20 (95% CI, 1.16-1.24) for Community, Comprehensive Community, Integrated Networks, and Academic Cancer Programs to 1.35 (95% CI, 1.28-1.42), 1.22 (95% CI, 1.17-1.26), 1.16 (95% CI, 1.11-1.22), and 1.17 (95% CI, 1.12-1.21), respectively (P < .001 for all comparisons with NCI-designated programs). Differences in quality of surgical resection and postoperative care accounted for 11% to 26% of the interinstitutional survival disparities.
interpretationTargeting six readily identified poor-quality markers narrowed, but did not eliminate, institutional survival disparities. The greatest impact was in community programs. Residual factors driving persistent institution-level long-term NSCLC survival disparities must be characterized to eliminate them.
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.