Variation in outcomes across surgeons meeting the Leapfrog volume standard for complex oncologic surgery

A large body of evidence supports regionalization of complex oncologic surgery to high-volume surgeons at high-volume hospitals. However, whether there is heterogeneity of outcomes among high-volume surgeons at high-volume hospitals remains unknown.

Patients who underwent esophagectomy, lung resection, pancreatectomy, or proctectomy for primary cancer were identified within the Medicare 100% Standard Analytic File (2013-2017). Mixed-effects analyses assessed the association between Leapfrog annual volume standards for surgeons (esophagectomy ≥7, lung resection ≥15, pancreatectomy ≥10, proctectomy ≥6) and hospitals (esophagectomy ≥20, lung resection ≥40, pancreatectomy ≥20, proctectomy ≥16) relative to postoperative complications and 90-day mortality. Additional analyses using New York's all-payer Statewide Planning and Research Cooperative System (2004-2015) were performed.

Among 112,154 Medicare beneficiaries, high-volume surgeons at high-volume hospitals were associated with lower adjusted odds of complications (esophagectomy: odds ratio [OR], 0.73 [95% CI, 0.61-0.86]; lung resection: OR, 0.88 [95% CI, 0.82-0.94]; pancreatectomy: OR, 0.73 [95% CI, 0.66-0.80]; proctectomy: OR, 0.92 [95% CI, 0.85-0.99]) and 90-day mortality (esophagectomy: OR, 0.60 [95% CI, 0.44-0.76]; lung resection: OR, 0.82 [95% CI, 0.73-0.93]; pancreatectomy: OR, 0.66 [95% CI, 0.56-0.76]; proctectomy: OR, 0.74 [95% CI, 0.65-0.85]). For the average patient at the average high-volume hospital, there was a 2-fold difference in the adjusted complication rate between the best-performing and worst-performing high-volume surgeon for all operations (esophagectomy, 28%-55%; lung resection, 7%-21%; pancreatectomy, 16%-35%; proctectomy, 16%-28%). Wide variation was also present in adjusted 90-day mortality for esophagectomy (3.5%-9.3%). Results from New York's all-payer database were similar.

Even among high-volume surgeons meeting the Leapfrog volume standards, wide variation in postoperative outcomes exists. These findings suggest that volume alone should not be used as a quality indicator, and quality metrics should be continuously evaluated across all surgeons and hospital systems.

Previous studies have demonstrated a surgical volume-outcome relationship for high-risk operations-that is high-volume surgeons and hospitals that perform a specific surgical procedure more frequently have better outcomes for that operation. Although most high-volume surgeons had better outcomes, this study demonstrated that some high-volume surgeons did not have better outcomes. Therefore, volume is an important factor but should not be the only factor considered when assessing the quality of a surgeon and a hospital for cancer surgery.