331. CASE-MIX ADJUSTMENT IN BETWEEN-HOSPITAL COMPARISONS ON CLINICAL OUTCOMES IN ESOPHAGEAL AND GASTRIC CANCER SURGERY: A NATIONWIDE POPULATION-BASED COHORT STUDY

Abstract Background Clinical outcomes of esophageal and gastric cancer surgery are used for internal and external benchmarking in clinical auditing. For true hospital comparisons, proper case-mix adjustment is required. This study aimed to develop distinct models that allow for case-mix adjusted quality assessment of esophageal and gastric cancer surgery separately and assessed the impact on between-hospital comparisons. Methods This study included all patients undergoing esophagogastric cancer surgery in the Netherlands between 2017-2022 registered in the Dutch Upper Gastrointestinal Cancer Audit. We developed distinct case-mix adjustment models for ten quality indicators (QIs) using backward selection. Model performance of each individual model was evaluated with area-under-the-receiving-operator-curve (AUC) statistics, representing the impact of case-mix on the QI scores. The impact on between-hospital comparisons was quantified using unadjusted and adjusted O/E ratios. Results A total of 4,354 esophageal cancer and 2,109 gastric cancer patients were included. The most frequently selected case-mix variables in the models for all QIs for esophageal cancer surgery were ASA-score, salvage surgery, peripheral vascular disease/aortic aneurysm, chronic lung disease, and tumor histology, whereas for gastric cancer these were age, preoperative weight loss, tumor location, and clinical M stage. The case-mix adjustment models for esophageal and gastric cancer surgery showed low to moderate performance, with internally validated AUCs of 0.58-0.73 and 0.58-0.74, respectively. Case-mix adjustment had low impact on between-hospital comparisons. For both types of cancer, case-mix adjustment had most pronounced impact on between-hospital comparisons for QIs 30-day/in-hospital mortality and failure-to-rescue. Conclusion This study showed that correct quality assessment requires different case-mix models per quality indicator for clinical outcomes of esophageal and gastric cancer surgery. The case-mix models had low to moderate performance scores, suggesting that case-mix has limited impact in between-hospital comparisons of oesopagogastric cancer surgery.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Diseases of the Esophagus
Published
2024-09-01
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1093/dote/doae057.093
Primary Topic
Gastric Cancer Management and Outcomes
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

331. CASE-MIX ADJUSTMENT IN BETWEEN-HOSPITAL COMPARISONS ON CLINICAL OUTCOMES IN ESOPHAGEAL AND GASTRIC CANCER SURGERY: A NATIONWIDE POPULATION-BASED COHORT STUDY

Mark I. van Berge Henegouwen, Martijn A. H. Oude Voshaar, Hester Lingsma, Frank Eijkenaar et al.
Diseases of the Esophagus
Gastric Cancer Management and Outcomes
article

331. CASE-MIX ADJUSTMENT IN BETWEEN-HOSPITAL COMPARISONS ON CLINICAL OUTCOMES IN ESOPHAGEAL AND GASTRIC CANCER SURGERY: A NATIONWIDE POPULATION-BASED COHORT STUDY

Mark I. van Berge Henegouwen, Martijn A. H. Oude Voshaar, Hester Lingsma, Frank Eijkenaar, Richard van Hillegersberg, Johanna van Sandick, Maurits Visser, Bas P. L. Wijnhoven, Margrietha van der Linden
article en

Abstract

Abstract Background Clinical outcomes of esophageal and gastric cancer surgery are used for internal and external benchmarking in clinical auditing. For true hospital comparisons, proper case-mix adjustment is required. This study aimed to develop distinct models that allow for case-mix adjusted quality assessment of esophageal and gastric cancer surgery separately and assessed the impact on between-hospital comparisons. Methods This study included all patients undergoing esophagogastric cancer surgery in the Netherlands between 2017-2022 registered in the Dutch Upper Gastrointestinal Cancer Audit. We developed distinct case-mix adjustment models for ten quality indicators (QIs) using backward selection. Model performance of each individual model was evaluated with area-under-the-receiving-operator-curve (AUC) statistics, representing the impact of case-mix on the QI scores. The impact on between-hospital comparisons was quantified using unadjusted and adjusted O/E ratios. Results A total of 4,354 esophageal cancer and 2,109 gastric cancer patients were included. The most frequently selected case-mix variables in the models for all QIs for esophageal cancer surgery were ASA-score, salvage surgery, peripheral vascular disease/aortic aneurysm, chronic lung disease, and tumor histology, whereas for gastric cancer these were age, preoperative weight loss, tumor location, and clinical M stage. The case-mix adjustment models for esophageal and gastric cancer surgery showed low to moderate performance, with internally validated AUCs of 0.58-0.73 and 0.58-0.74, respectively. Case-mix adjustment had low impact on between-hospital comparisons. For both types of cancer, case-mix adjustment had most pronounced impact on between-hospital comparisons for QIs 30-day/in-hospital mortality and failure-to-rescue. Conclusion This study showed that correct quality assessment requires different case-mix models per quality indicator for clinical outcomes of esophageal and gastric cancer surgery. The case-mix models had low to moderate performance scores, suggesting that case-mix has limited impact in between-hospital comparisons of oesopagogastric cancer surgery.

Diseases of the EsophagusVol. 37(Supplement_1)
Utrecht University (NL), Erasmus MC (NL), The Netherlands Cancer Institute (NL), Dutch Institute for Clinical Auditing (NL), Amsterdam University Medical Centers (NL), Erasmus University Rotterdam (NL)
Good health and well-being
Openalex Percentile: Top 74%
Gastric Cancer Management and Outcomes
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.