Impact of facility type and volume in low-grade glioma outcomes.

Clicks: 495
ID: 53267
2019
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality
Not rated
Combines reader engagement with the AI quality analysis. This article has not been analysed, so there is no overall score — reader engagement is measured and shown alongside.
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Readership in this journal
Steady

Ranked #6 of 53 articles by views in journal of neurosurgery

Most read Least read

Bar heights use a square-root scale.

Mint this article as an NFT
Not yet minted

Create a permanent, verifiable on-chain record of this article on the Scimatic Network. The NFT is held in your Journament account, and you can withdraw it to your own wallet at any time.

5 SUSD one-off · no wallet required
Sign in to mint
Abstract
The object of this study was to investigate the impact of facility type (academic center [AC] vs non-AC) and facility volume (high-volume facility [HVF] vs low-volume facility [LVF]) on low-grade glioma (LGG) outcomes.This retrospective cohort study included 5539 LGG patients (2004-2014) from the National Cancer Database. Patients were categorized by facility type and volume (non-AC vs AC, HVF vs LVF). An HVF was defined as the top 1% of facilities according to the number of annual cases. Outcomes included overall survival, treatment receipt, and postoperative outcomes. Kaplan-Meier and Cox proportional-hazards models were applied. The Heller explained relative risk was computed to assess the relative importance of each survival predictor.Significant survival advantages were observed at HVFs (HR 0.67, 95% CI 0.55-0.82, p < 0.001) and ACs (HR 0.84, 95% CI 0.73-0.97, p = 0.015), both prior to and after adjusting for all covariates. Tumor resection was 41% and 26% more likely to be performed at HVFs vs LVFs and ACs vs non-ACs, respectively. Chemotherapy was 40% and 88% more frequently to be utilized at HVFs vs LVFs and ACs vs non-ACs, respectively. Prolonged length of stay (LOS) was decreased by 42% and 24% at HVFs and ACs, respectively. After tumor histology, tumor pattern, and codeletion of 1p19q, facility type and surgical procedure were the most important contributors to survival variance. The main findings remained consistent using propensity score matching and multiple imputation.This study provides evidence of survival benefits among LGG patients treated at HVFs and ACs. An increased likelihood of undergoing resections, receiving adjuvant therapies, having shorter LOSs, and the multidisciplinary environment typically found at ACs and HVFs are important contributors to the authors' finding.
Reference Key
zhu2019impactjournal Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
Authors Zhu, Ping;Du, Xianglin L;Blanco, Angel I;Ballester, Leomar Y;Tandon, Nitin;Berger, Mitchel S;Zhu, Jay-Jiguang;Esquenazi, Yoshua;
Journal journal of neurosurgery
Year 2019
DOI
10.3171/2019.6.JNS19409
URL
Keywords
oncology low-grade glioma ac = academic center crt = chemoradiation eor = extent of resection gtr = gross-total resection hvf = high-volume facility lgg = low-grade glioma los = length of stay lvf = low-volume facility ncdb = national cancer database national cancer database os = overall survival psm = propensity score matching rt = radiation therapy str = subtotal resection us = united states hospital based overall survival volume based

Citations

No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org

Comments

No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.