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

4 Citations (Scopus)

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

Cystectomy
Neoplasms
Prostatic Neoplasms
Survival
Urinary Bladder Neoplasms
Penile Neoplasms
Kidney Neoplasms
Penis
Testicular Neoplasms
Testis
Retrospective Studies
Morbidity
Kidney
Life Change Events
MEDLINE
Quality of Life
Prospective Studies
Delivery of Health Care
Costs and Cost Analysis
Incidence

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., ... 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

Impact of Centralizing Care for Genitourinary Malignancies to High-volume Providers : A Systematic Review. / Williams, Stephen; Ray-Zack, Mohamed; Hudgins, Hogan K.; Oldenburg, Jan; Trinh, Quoc Dien; Nguyen, Paul L.; Shore, Neal D.; Wirth, Manfred P.; O'Brien, Timothy; Catto, James W.F.

In: European Urology Oncology, Vol. 2, No. 3, 01.05.2019, p. 265-273.

Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

Williams, S, Ray-Zack, M, Hudgins, HK, Oldenburg, J, Trinh, QD, Nguyen, PL, Shore, ND, Wirth, MP, O'Brien, T & Catto, JWF 2019, 'Impact of Centralizing Care for Genitourinary Malignancies to High-volume Providers: A Systematic Review', European Urology Oncology, vol. 2, no. 3, pp. 265-273. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euo.2018.10.006
Williams, Stephen ; Ray-Zack, Mohamed ; Hudgins, Hogan K. ; Oldenburg, Jan ; Trinh, Quoc Dien ; Nguyen, Paul L. ; Shore, Neal D. ; Wirth, Manfred P. ; O'Brien, Timothy ; Catto, James W.F. / Impact of Centralizing Care for Genitourinary Malignancies to High-volume Providers : A Systematic Review. In: European Urology Oncology. 2019 ; Vol. 2, No. 3. pp. 265-273.
@article{120a17f8223a45ba9ff88fa1ac94dbce,
title = "Impact of Centralizing Care for Genitourinary Malignancies to High-volume Providers: A Systematic Review",
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.",
keywords = "Cancer, Centralization, Genitourinary, Outcomes, Survival, Urology, Use, Utilization",
author = "Stephen Williams and Mohamed Ray-Zack and Hudgins, {Hogan K.} and Jan Oldenburg and Trinh, {Quoc Dien} and Nguyen, {Paul L.} and Shore, {Neal D.} and Wirth, {Manfred P.} and Timothy O'Brien and Catto, {James W.F.}",
year = "2019",
month = "5",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1016/j.euo.2018.10.006",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "2",
pages = "265--273",
journal = "European urology oncology",
issn = "2588-9311",
publisher = "Elsevier BV",
number = "3",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Impact of Centralizing Care for Genitourinary Malignancies to High-volume Providers

T2 - A Systematic Review

AU - Williams, Stephen

AU - Ray-Zack, Mohamed

AU - Hudgins, Hogan K.

AU - Oldenburg, Jan

AU - Trinh, Quoc Dien

AU - Nguyen, Paul L.

AU - Shore, Neal D.

AU - Wirth, Manfred P.

AU - O'Brien, Timothy

AU - Catto, James W.F.

PY - 2019/5/1

Y1 - 2019/5/1

N2 - 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.

AB - 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.

KW - Cancer

KW - Centralization

KW - Genitourinary

KW - Outcomes

KW - Survival

KW - Urology

KW - Use

KW - Utilization

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85060341594&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85060341594&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.euo.2018.10.006

DO - 10.1016/j.euo.2018.10.006

M3 - Review article

C2 - 31200840

AN - SCOPUS:85060341594

VL - 2

SP - 265

EP - 273

JO - European urology oncology

JF - European urology oncology

SN - 2588-9311

IS - 3

ER -