Impact of Centralizing Care for Genitourinary Malignancies to High-volume Providers: A Systematic Review

Stephen Williams, Mohamed Ray-Zack, Hogan K. Hudgins, Jan Oldenburg, Quoc Dien Trinh, Paul L. Nguyen, Neal D. Shore, Manfred P. Wirth, Timothy O'Brien, James W.F. Catto

Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

10 Scopus citations

Abstract

Context: The centralization of cancer care is associated with better clinical outcomes and may be a method for optimizing value-based health care systems. Objective: To systematically review the literature regarding the impact of centralization of care on clinical outcomes for genitourinary malignancies. Evidence acquisition: A systematic review was conducted using Ovid and MEDLINE to identify studies between 1970 and 2018 reporting on the centralization of care for genitourinary malignancies. Prospective and retrospective studies were screened. Evidence synthesis: There were no published randomized control trials (RCTs) on the centralization of care for genitourinary malignancies. Twenty-two retrospective studies met inclusion criteria. Centralization of radical cystectomy was the most studied. Care for bladder cancer, prostate cancer, penile cancer, testicular cancer, and renal cancer was reportedly associated with better morbidity and survival outcomes for patients treated at high-volume centers. However, evidence of better outcomes for centralization of care remains limited for penile, renal, and testicular cancers owing to the paucity of data and/or the lower incidence of these genitourinary malignancies. Conclusions: Care for genitourinary malignancies by high-volume providers was associated with greater utilization of cancer surgery, lower morbidity, and better survival outcomes. Centralization of care was most appropriate for complex procedures such as radical cystectomy when interpreted in the context of survival outcomes. Further research is needed to address the impact of centralizing care for all urologic malignancies with consideration of the associated costs and patient-reported measures, including quality of life and patient experience. Patient summary: We explored the evidence for moving major operations into larger centers. We focused on surgery for cancers of the bladder, prostate, testicle, penis, and kidney, and found that larger-volume hospitals had better survival outcomes and fewer complications when compared to smaller hospitals. The difference may be greatest for complex major surgeries such as radical cystectomy. We explored the evidence for moving major operations into larger centers. We focused on surgery for cancers of the bladder, prostate, testicle, penis, and kidney and found that larger-volume hospitals had better survival outcomes and fewer complications when compared to smaller-volume hospitals. The difference may be greatest for complex major surgeries such as radical cystectomy.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)265-273
Number of pages9
JournalEuropean Urology Oncology
Volume2
Issue number3
DOIs
StatePublished - May 1 2019

    Fingerprint

Keywords

  • Cancer
  • Centralization
  • Genitourinary
  • Outcomes
  • Survival
  • Urology
  • Use
  • Utilization

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Radiology Nuclear Medicine and imaging
  • Surgery
  • Oncology
  • Urology

Cite this

Williams, S., Ray-Zack, M., Hudgins, H. K., Oldenburg, J., Trinh, Q. D., Nguyen, P. L., Shore, N. D., Wirth, M. P., O'Brien, T., & Catto, J. W. F. (2019). Impact of Centralizing Care for Genitourinary Malignancies to High-volume Providers: A Systematic Review. European Urology Oncology, 2(3), 265-273. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euo.2018.10.006