Endometrial Cancer; Hospital Case Volume; Hospital Volume-Outcome Relationship; Patient Outcomes; Quality Indicators; Quality of Care; Uterine Corpus Cancer; Oncology; Obstetrics and Gynecology
Abstract :
[en] [en] OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to prospectively evaluate whether hospital case volume is positively associated with both the outcome and the quality of care of uterine corpus cancer in Belgium.
METHODS: This was a prospective, observational, registration-based, real-world database study. Hospital case volume was categorized according to the total number of patients treated on average per year: low (<10/y), medium (10-19/y), and high (≥20/y). Adjusting for patient case mix and intra-hospital correlations, logistic and Cox proportional hazards regression were used to test for associations between hospital case volume and a multi-disciplinary set of process and outcome indicators. Sub-group analyses by recurrence risk were performed for overall survival and disease-free survival.
RESULTS: In total, 4178 patients diagnosed with a primary cancer of the uterine corpus between 2012 and 2016 in Belgium were included. Compared with patients treated in high-volume hospitals, patients treated in low-volume hospitals were more likely to die of any cause within 5 years after diagnosis (adjusted hazard ratio 1.37, p < .01), as were patients treated in medium-volume hospitals (adjusted hazard ratio 1.18, p < .05). Similar results were observed in the sub-group analyses, but only among patients with high-intermediate-risk and high-risk disease. In contrast, hazards for disease-free survival did not differ by hospital case volume, neither in the total study population nor in the sub-group analyses by recurrence risk. Furthermore, analysis of the process indicators showed that patients treated in low- and medium-volume hospitals were less likely to receive multiple guideline-recommended procedures compared with those treated in high-volume hospitals, including minimally invasive surgery, surgical lymph node staging, staging omentectomy, and adjuvant chemotherapy.
CONCLUSIONS: On average, increased hospital case volume was positively associated with improved overall survival and quality of care, supporting centralization of uterine corpus cancer care into high-volume reference centers in Belgium.
Disciplines :
Reproductive medicine (gynecology, andrology, obstetrics) Oncology Public health, health care sciences & services
Author, co-author :
Vanbraband, Joren; KU Leuven, Department of Oncology, Unit of Gynecologic Oncology, Leuven, Belgium
Van Damme, Nancy; Belgian Cancer Registry, Brussels, Belgium
Silversmit, Geert ; Belgian Cancer Registry, Brussels, Belgium
De Geyndt, Anke; Belgian Cancer Registry, Brussels, Belgium
Herreros-Pomares, Alejandro ; KU Leuven, Department of Oncology, Unit of Gynecologic Oncology, Leuven, Belgium
Bouche, Gauthier ; The Anticancer Fund, Meise, Belgium
Jacomen, Gerd; AZ Sint-Maarten, Laboratory of Pathological Anatomy, Mechelen, Belgium
de Jonge, Eric; Ziekenhuis Oost-Limburg, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Genk, Belgium
Goffin, Frédéric ; Université de Liège - ULiège > Département des sciences cliniques > Gynécologie-obstétrique, partim Gynécologie
Denys, Hannelore; Ghent University Hospital, Department of Medical Oncology, Ghent, Belgium
Amant, Frédéric ; KU Leuven, Department of Oncology, Unit of Gynecologic Oncology, Leuven, Belgium, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Department of Surgery, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, UZ Leuven, Department of Gynecologic Oncology, Leuven, Belgium. Electronic address: frederic.amant@uzleuven.be
Language :
English
Title :
Increased hospital case volume is associated with improved survival and quality of care for uterine corpus cancer in Belgium.
This work was supported by Kom op tegen Kanker (grant number KotK/2018/11467/1) and the Anticancer Fund (grant number A11). Through employment of GB, the Anticancer Fund was indirectly involved in the conceptualization and design of the study, the critical appraisal and interpretation of the data, and the revising of the manuscript. Kom op tegen Kanker had no such involvement nor any other involvement.
Gu BX, Shang XG, Yan MQ, et al. Variations in incidence and mortality rates of endometrial cancer at the global, regional, and national levels, 1990-2019. Gynecol Oncol. 2021;161(2):573-580. doi:10.1016/j.ygyno.2021.01.036
Siegel RL, Kratzer TB, Giaquinto AN, Sung H, Jemal A. Cancer statistics, 2025. CA Cancer J Clin. 2025;75(1):10-45. doi:10.3322/caac.21871
Fader AN, Habermann EB, Hanson KT, Lin JF, Grendys EC, Dowdy SC. Disparities in treatment and survival for women with endometrial cancer: a contemporary national cancer database registry analysis. Gynecol Oncol. 2016;143(1):98-104. doi:10.1016/j.ygyno.2016.07.107
Birkmeyer JD, Sun YT, Wong SL, Stukel TA. Hospital volume and late survival after cancer surgery. Ann Surg. 2007;245(5):777-783. doi:10.1097/01.sla.0000252402.33814.dd
Gruen RL, Pitt V, Green S, Parkhill A, Campbell D, Jolley D. The effect of provider case volume on cancer mortality: systematic review and meta-analysis. CA Cancer J Clin. 2009;59(3):192-211. doi:10.3322/caac.20018
Seagle BLL, Strohl AE, Dandapani M, Nieves-Neira W, Shahabi S. Survival disparities by hospital volume among American women with gynecologic cancers. JCO Clin Cancer Inform. 2017;1:1-15. doi:10.1200/cci.16.00053
Ioka A, Tsukuma H, Ajiki W, Oshima A. Influence of hospital procedure volume on uterine cancer survival in Osaka, Japan. Cancer Sci. 2005;96(10):689-694. doi:10.1111/j.1349-7006.2005.00094.x
Machida H, Matsuo K, Oba K, et al. Association between hospital treatment volume and survival of women with gynecologic malignancy in Japan: a JSOG tumor registry-based data extraction study. J Gynecol Oncol. 2022;33(1):e3. doi:10.3802/jgo.2022.33.e3
Wright JD, Lewin SN, Deutsch I, Burke WM, Sun XM, Herzog TJ. Effect of surgical volume on morbidity and mortality of abdominal hysterectomy for endometrial cancer. Obstet Gynecol. 2011;117(5):1051-1059. doi:10.1097/aog.0b013e31821647a0
Becker JH, Ezendam NP, Boll D, van der Aa M, Pijnenborg JM. Effects of surgical volumes on the survival of endometrial carcinoma. Gynecol Oncol. 2015;139(2):306-311. doi:10.1016/j.ygyno.2015.09.003
Diaz-Montes TP, Zahurak ML, Giuntoli RL, Gardner GJ, Bristow RE. Uterine cancer in Maryland: impact of surgeon case volume and other prognostic factors on short-term mortality. Gynecol Oncol. 2006;103(3):1043-1047. doi:10.1016/j.ygyno.2006.06.018
Wang CC, Bharadwa S, Domenech I, Barber EL. In the patient’s shoes: the impact of hospital proximity and volume on stage I endometrial cancer care patterns and outcomes. Gynecol Oncol. 2024;182:91-98. doi:10.1016/j.ygyno.2024.01.003
Werbrouck J, Bouche G, de Jonge E, et al. Evaluation of the quality of the management of cancer of the corpus uteri - Selection of relevant quality indicators and implementation in Belgium. Gynecol Oncol. 2013;131(3):512-519. doi:10.1016/j.ygyno.2013.10.001
Luft HS, Bunker JP, Enthoven AC. Should operations be regionalized? The empirical relation between surgical volume and mortality. N Engl J Med. 1979;301(25):1364-1369. doi:10.1056/nejm197912203012503
Halm EA, Lee C, Chassin MR. Is volume related to outcome in health care? A systematic review and methodologic critique of the literature. Ann Intern Med. 2002;137(6):511-520. doi:10.7326/0003-4819-137-6-200209170-00012
Chowdhury MM, Dagash H, Pierro A. A systematic review of the impact of volume of surgery and specialization on patient outcome. Br J Surg. 2007;94(2):145-161. doi:10.1002/bjs.5714
Pieper D, Mathes T, Neugebauer E, Eikermann M. State of evidence on the relationship between high-volume hospitals and outcomes in surgery: a systematic review of systematic reviews. J Am Coll Surg. 2013;216(5):1015-1025.e18. doi:10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2012.12.049
Concin N, Matias-Guiu X, Vergote I, et al. ESGO/ESTRO/ESP guidelines for the management of patients with endometrial carcinoma. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2021;31(1):12-39. doi:10.1136/ijgc-2020-002230
Concin N, Planchamp F, Abu-Rustum NR, et al. European Society of Gynaecological Oncology quality indicators for the surgical treatment of endometrial carcinoma. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2021;31(12):1508-1529. doi:10.1136/ijgc-2021-003178
Roland PY, Kelly FJ, Kulwicki CY, Blitzer P, Curcio M, Orr JW. The benefits of a gynecologic oncologist: a pattern of care study for endometrial cancer treatment. Gynecol Oncol. 2004;93(1):125-130. doi:10.1016/j.ygyno.2003.12.018
Chan JK, Sherman AE, Kapp DS, et al. Influence of gynecologic oncologists on the survival of patients with endometrial cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2011;29(7):832-838. doi:10.1200/jco.2010.31.2124
Bixel K, Barrington DA, Vetter MH, Suarez AA, Felix AS. Determinants of surgical approach and survival among women with endometrial carcinoma. J Minim Invas Gynecol. 2022;29(2):219-230. doi:10.1016/j.jmig.2021.07.018
Nieto VL, Huang YM, Hou JY, et al. Use and outcomes of minimally invasive hysterectomy for women with nonendometrioid endometrial cancers. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2018;219(5):463.e1-463.e12. doi:10.1016/j.ajog.2018.07.028
Foote JR, Gaillard S, Broadwater G, et al. Disparities in the surgical staging of high-grade endometrial cancer in the United States. Gynecol Oncol Res Pract. 2017;4:1. doi:10.1186/s40661-016-0036-3
Nasioudis D, Heyward Q, Gysler S, et al. Is there a benefit of performing an omentectomy for clinical stage I high-grade endometrial carcinoma? Surg Oncol. 2021;37:101534. doi:10.1016/j.suronc.2021.101534
Bregar AJ, Alejandro Rauh-Hain J, Spencer R, et al. Disparities in receipt of care for high-grade endometrial cancer: a National Cancer Data Base analysis. Gynecol Oncol. 2017;145(1):114-121. doi:10.1016/j.ygyno.2017.01.024
Vanbraband J, Van Damme N, Bouche G, et al. Completeness and selection bias of a Belgian multidisciplinary, registration-based study on the EFFectiveness and quality of Endometrial Cancer Treatment (EFFECT). BMC Cancer. 2022;22(1):600. doi:10.1186/s12885-022-09671-5
Stordeur S, Vrijens F, Henau K, Schillemans V, De Gendt C, Leroy R. Organisation of care for adults with a rare or complex cancer. Health services research (HSR) brussels: Belgian health care Knowledge Centre (KCE). KCE Rep. 2014;219:D/2014/10.273/21. doi:10.57598/R219C
