The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Hospital Volume and Operative Mortality in Cancer Surgery: A National Study
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Although initiatives to regionalize cancer surgery are already under way, the relative importance of volume in cancer surgery is disputed. HYPOTHESIS: We examined surgical mortality with 8 cancer resections in the US population to better quantify the influence of hospital volume. METHODS: Using information from the all-payer Nationwide Inpatient Sample (1995-1997), we examined mortality with 8 cancer resections (N = 195 152). After dividing patients into 3 evenly sized volume groups based on hospital procedure volume (low, medium, and high), we used regression techniques to describe relationships between hospital volume and in-hospital mortality, adjusting for patient characteristics. RESULTS: Trends toward lower operative risks at high-volume hospitals were observed for 7 of the 8 procedures. However, differences between low- and high high-volume hospitals were statistically significant for only 3 operations (esophagectomy, 15.0% vs 6.5%; pancreatic resection, 13.1% vs 2.5%; and pulmonary lobectomy, 10.1% vs 8.9%, respectively). Although they did not reach statistical significance, absolute differences in mortality between low- and high-volume hospitals were greater than 1% for the following 3 procedures: gastrectomy, 8.7% vs 6.9%; cystectomy, 3.6% vs 2.5%; and pneumonectomy, 10.6% vs 8.9%, respectively. Mortality reductions for nephrectomy and colectomy were small. In general, in terms of absolute differences in mortality, the effect of volume was greatest in elderly patients. CONCLUSIONS: Operative mortality decreases with increasing hospital volume for several cancer resections. However, volume may be most important in patients who are older and at higher risk.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Physiologic Evaluation of the Patient With Lung Cancer Being Considered for Resectional Surgery
Brunelli, A., Kim, A. W., Berger, K. I., & Addrizzo-Harris, D. J. (2013) · Chest · doi:10.1378/chest.12-2395 · Cited by 910
National Failure to Operate on Early Stage Pancreatic Cancer
Bilimoria, K. Y., Bentrem, D. J., Ko, C. Y., Stewart, A. K., Winchester, D. P., & Talamonti, M. S. (2007) · Annals of Surgery · doi:10.1097/sla.0b013e3180691579 · Cited by 554
Perioperative Mortality for Pancreatectomy: A National Perspective
McPhee, J. T., Hill, J. S., Whalen, G. F., Zayaruzny, M., Litwin, D. E., Sullivan, M. E., Anderson, F. A., & Tseng, J. F. (2007) · Annals of Surgery · doi:10.1097/01.sla.0000259993.17350.3a · Cited by 481
Long-Term Survival Is Superior After Resection for Cancer in High-Volume Centers
Fong, Y., Gonen, M., Rubin, D., Radzyner, M., & Brennan, M. F. (2005) · Annals of Surgery · doi:10.1097/01.sla.0000184190.20289.4b · Cited by 398
Hospital Nurse Practice Environments and Outcomes for Surgical Oncology Patients
Friese, C. R., Lake, E. T., Aiken, L. H., Silber, J. H., & Sochalski, J. (2008) · Health Services Research · doi:10.1111/j.1475-6773.2007.00825.x · Cited by 377
Metadata
- Authors
- Finlayson, E. V. A.
- Venue
- Archives of Surgery
- Publisher
- American Medical Association (AMA)
- Published
- 2003-07-01
- Volume
- 138
- Issue
- 7
- Pages
- 721
- ISSN
- 0004-0010 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2083886156
- Cited by
- 484
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 33.43
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Hospital Volume and Operative Mortality in Cancer Surgery: A National Study. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1001/archsurg.138.7.721
- The paper
- Finlayson, E. V. A. (2003). Hospital Volume and Operative Mortality in Cancer Surgery: A National Study. Archives of Surgery. https://doi.org/10.1001/archsurg.138.7.721
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.