Patients with mRCC survive longer at high-volume centers

Once again, a study has shown that when it comes to managing patients with serious advanced malignancies – in this case, metastatic renal cell carcinoma – experience matters.

A review of data on 41,836 patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) treated at 1,222 facilities (TFs) showed that across all cohorts, including patients with known liver and lung metastases who received systemic therapies, treatment-center volume was significantly associated with longer survival, reported Daniel M. Geynisman, MD of Fox Chase Cancer Center in Philadelphia, and his colleagues.

“These findings may help define the optimal treatment environment for the management of patients with mRCC. The improved survival outcomes at higher-volume TFs should also be a call to improve mRCC management at lower-volume facilities. Given the negative externalities of care regionalization, focus should shift toward policies that help equalize mRCC management at lower-volume TFs by expanding treatment options, clinical trial access, and specialized resource availability,” the researchers wrote. Their report is in European Urology.

The investigators noted that several studies have demonstrated that patients with localized RCC treated at high-volume centers had better postoperative outcomes and few complications following surgery for renal cancer, but whether treatment volume makes a difference for patients with metastatic disease was less clear.

To get a better understanding of the association between case volume and outcomes for patients with advanced RCC, the investigators searched the National Cancer Database for information on all U.S. patients with mRCC from 2004 through 2013 for whom survival data were available.

To confirm the association with volume, they created five cohorts with increasingly restrictive inclusion criteria, as follows:

• Cohort A: All patients with survival data (41,836 patients).
• Cohort B: Patients with mRCC who received active treatment of any kind (27,557).
• Cohort C: Patients treated with systemic therapy with or without primary surgery (19,138).
• Cohort D: Patients treated with systemic therapy at the reporting facility (12,000).
• Cohort E: Patients with known sites of metastases (4,933).

The investigators also conducted sensitivity analyses on subcohorts of patients who did not receive nephrectomies in cohorts C, D, and E.

They found in a multivariable analysis that increased volume, measured as cases per year, was associated with reduced overall mortality across all cohorts.

For example, in cohort A, the hazard ratio (HR) for overall mortality for TFs caring for a mean of 5 patients per year was 0.92, compared with 0.84 for centers with 10 cases per year, and 0.74 for TFs caring for a mean of 20 patients per year (P less than .001). Similarly, the respective HRs for patients in cohort E were 0.88, 0.79, and 0.72 (P less than .001).

The overall probability of mortality was also significantly lower in higher-volume centers for those patients in cohorts C, D, and E who did not undergo nephrectomy.

The investigators acknowledged that the study was limited by the retrospective nature of the database information, and by the absence of data on treatment regimens used at specific facilities, which may explain mechanisms of the effects they observed.

The investigators did not specify a study funding source. Dr. Geynisman reported having no conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Joshi SS et al. Eur Urol. 2018 Sep;74[3]:387-93.

Once again, a study has shown that when it comes to managing patients with serious advanced malignancies – in this case, metastatic renal cell carcinoma – experience matters.

A review of data on 41,836 patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) treated at 1,222 facilities (TFs) showed that across all cohorts, including patients with known liver and lung metastases who received systemic therapies, treatment-center volume was significantly associated with longer survival, reported Daniel M. Geynisman, MD of Fox Chase Cancer Center in Philadelphia, and his colleagues.

“These findings may help define the optimal treatment environment for the management of patients with mRCC. The improved survival outcomes at higher-volume TFs should also be a call to improve mRCC management at lower-volume facilities. Given the negative externalities of care regionalization, focus should shift toward policies that help equalize mRCC management at lower-volume TFs by expanding treatment options, clinical trial access, and specialized resource availability,” the researchers wrote. Their report is in European Urology.

The investigators noted that several studies have demonstrated that patients with localized RCC treated at high-volume centers had better postoperative outcomes and few complications following surgery for renal cancer, but whether treatment volume makes a difference for patients with metastatic disease was less clear.

To get a better understanding of the association between case volume and outcomes for patients with advanced RCC, the investigators searched the National Cancer Database for information on all U.S. patients with mRCC from 2004 through 2013 for whom survival data were available.

To confirm the association with volume, they created five cohorts with increasingly restrictive inclusion criteria, as follows:

• Cohort A: All patients with survival data (41,836 patients).
• Cohort B: Patients with mRCC who received active treatment of any kind (27,557).
• Cohort C: Patients treated with systemic therapy with or without primary surgery (19,138).
• Cohort D: Patients treated with systemic therapy at the reporting facility (12,000).
• Cohort E: Patients with known sites of metastases (4,933).

The investigators also conducted sensitivity analyses on subcohorts of patients who did not receive nephrectomies in cohorts C, D, and E.

They found in a multivariable analysis that increased volume, measured as cases per year, was associated with reduced overall mortality across all cohorts.

For example, in cohort A, the hazard ratio (HR) for overall mortality for TFs caring for a mean of 5 patients per year was 0.92, compared with 0.84 for centers with 10 cases per year, and 0.74 for TFs caring for a mean of 20 patients per year (P less than .001). Similarly, the respective HRs for patients in cohort E were 0.88, 0.79, and 0.72 (P less than .001).

The overall probability of mortality was also significantly lower in higher-volume centers for those patients in cohorts C, D, and E who did not undergo nephrectomy.

The investigators acknowledged that the study was limited by the retrospective nature of the database information, and by the absence of data on treatment regimens used at specific facilities, which may explain mechanisms of the effects they observed.

The investigators did not specify a study funding source. Dr. Geynisman reported having no conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Joshi SS et al. Eur Urol. 2018 Sep;74[3]:387-93.

Once again, a study has shown that when it comes to managing patients with serious advanced malignancies – in this case, metastatic renal cell carcinoma – experience matters.

A review of data on 41,836 patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) treated at 1,222 facilities (TFs) showed that across all cohorts, including patients with known liver and lung metastases who received systemic therapies, treatment-center volume was significantly associated with longer survival, reported Daniel M. Geynisman, MD of Fox Chase Cancer Center in Philadelphia, and his colleagues.

“These findings may help define the optimal treatment environment for the management of patients with mRCC. The improved survival outcomes at higher-volume TFs should also be a call to improve mRCC management at lower-volume facilities. Given the negative externalities of care regionalization, focus should shift toward policies that help equalize mRCC management at lower-volume TFs by expanding treatment options, clinical trial access, and specialized resource availability,” the researchers wrote. Their report is in European Urology.

The investigators noted that several studies have demonstrated that patients with localized RCC treated at high-volume centers had better postoperative outcomes and few complications following surgery for renal cancer, but whether treatment volume makes a difference for patients with metastatic disease was less clear.

To get a better understanding of the association between case volume and outcomes for patients with advanced RCC, the investigators searched the National Cancer Database for information on all U.S. patients with mRCC from 2004 through 2013 for whom survival data were available.

To confirm the association with volume, they created five cohorts with increasingly restrictive inclusion criteria, as follows:

• Cohort A: All patients with survival data (41,836 patients).
• Cohort B: Patients with mRCC who received active treatment of any kind (27,557).
• Cohort C: Patients treated with systemic therapy with or without primary surgery (19,138).
• Cohort D: Patients treated with systemic therapy at the reporting facility (12,000).
• Cohort E: Patients with known sites of metastases (4,933).

The investigators also conducted sensitivity analyses on subcohorts of patients who did not receive nephrectomies in cohorts C, D, and E.

They found in a multivariable analysis that increased volume, measured as cases per year, was associated with reduced overall mortality across all cohorts.

For example, in cohort A, the hazard ratio (HR) for overall mortality for TFs caring for a mean of 5 patients per year was 0.92, compared with 0.84 for centers with 10 cases per year, and 0.74 for TFs caring for a mean of 20 patients per year (P less than .001). Similarly, the respective HRs for patients in cohort E were 0.88, 0.79, and 0.72 (P less than .001).

The overall probability of mortality was also significantly lower in higher-volume centers for those patients in cohorts C, D, and E who did not undergo nephrectomy.

The investigators acknowledged that the study was limited by the retrospective nature of the database information, and by the absence of data on treatment regimens used at specific facilities, which may explain mechanisms of the effects they observed.

The investigators did not specify a study funding source. Dr. Geynisman reported having no conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Joshi SS et al. Eur Urol. 2018 Sep;74[3]:387-93.