Volume–Outcome Relationship in Cancer Survival Rates: Analysis of a Regional Population-Based Cancer Registry in Japan
Rattachement africain : jp. Niveau de preuve : code pays fourni par la source.
Le résumé fourni par la source
BACKGROUND: There is limited data on the relationship between hospital volumes and outcomes with respect to cancer survival in Japan. The primary objective of this study was to evaluate the effect of hospital volume on cancer survival rate using a population-based cohort database. METHODS: Using the Kanagawa cancer registry, propensity score matching was employed to create a dataset for each cancer type by selecting 1:1 matches for cases from high- and other-volume hospitals. The 5-year survival rate was estimated and the hazard ratio (HR) for hospital volume was calculated using a Cox proportional hazard model. Additional analyses were performed limited to cancer patients who underwent surgical operation, chemotherapy, and other treatments in each tumor stage and at the time of diagnosis. RESULTS: The number of cases with complete data, defined as common cancers (prostate, kidney, bladder, esophagus, stomach, liver, pancreas, colon, breast, and lung), was 181,039. Adjusted HR differed significantly among hospital volume categories for the most common cancers except bladder, and the trends varied according to cancer type. The HR ranged from 0.76 (95%CI, 0.74-0.79) for stomach cancer to 0.85 (0.81-0.90) for colon cancer. CONCLUSIONS: This study revealed that a relationship may exist between hospital volume and cancer survival in Japan.
Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.
Le contrôle bibliographique ouvert
DOI retrouvé dans Crossref DOI retrouvé ; titre concordant.
- Titre Crossref
- Volume–Outcome Relationship in Cancer Survival Rates: Analysis of a Regional Population-Based Cancer Registry in Japan
- Date Crossref
- 21/12/2022
- Éditeur
- MDPI AG
- Type
- journal-article
Ce recoupement confirme des métadonnées liées au DOI. Il ne confirme ni la méthode ni les conclusions de l’étude, et il ne compte pas comme une seconde source scientifique indépendante.
Les institutions déclarées
Une affiliation ne permet pas de déduire la nationalité d’un auteur.