• Ryan C Jacobs, Shawn Groth, Farhood Farjah, Mark A Wilson, Laura A Petersen, and Nader N Massarweh.
• Michael E. DeBakey Department of Surgery, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX.
• Ann. Surg. 2019 Dec 1; 270 (6): 1079-1089.

ObjectiveTo quantify the number of US hospitals that would meet "Take the Volume Pledge" (TVP) volume thresholds and compare outcomes at hospitals meeting and not meeting TVP thresholds.Summary Background DataTVP aims to regionalize complex cancer resections to hospitals meeting established annual average volume thresholds. There is little data describing the potential impact on patient access if this initiative were broadly implemented or the relationship between these volume thresholds and quality of oncologic care.MethodsHospitals in the National Cancer Database (2006-2012) performing esophagectomy (n = 968), proctectomy (n = 1250), or pancreatectomy (n = 1068) were categorized based on frequency meeting TVP thresholds: always low volume (LV); low annual average and intermittently low volume (ILV); high annual average and intermittently high volume (IHV); always high volume (HV). Multivariable generalized estimating equations were used to evaluate the association between hospital TVP category, oncologic care processes, and perioperative outcomes.ResultsFew hospitals met annual TVP thresholds (HV or IHV)-esophagectomy 1.6%; proctectomy 19.7%; pancreatectomy 6.6%. The majority of esophagectomy (77.8%) and pancreatectomy (53.4%) and 48.1% of proctectomy patients received care at hospitals not meeting annual TVP thresholds (LV or ILV). While performance for all three procedures was generally better at ILV, IHV, and HV hospitals relative to LV hospitals, there were few differences (none of which were consistent) when comparing ILV, IHV, and HV hospitals to each other.Conclusions And RelevanceFew hospitals would meet TVP volume thresholds for complex cancer resections with little difference in outcomes between ILV, IHV, and HV hospitals. While a policy to regionalize complex surgical care may have merit, it could also compromise patient autonomy and limit access to care if patients are unable or unwilling to travel.

21 keywords...

hide…