Asset Details
Do you wish to reserve the book?
Systematic failure to operate on colorectal cancer liver metastases in California
Hey, we have placed the reservation for you!
By the way, why not check out events that you can attend while you pick your title.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place the reservation. Kindly try again later.
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
Systematic failure to operate on colorectal cancer liver metastases in California
Do you wish to request the book?
Systematic failure to operate on colorectal cancer liver metastases in California
Please be aware that the book you have requested cannot be checked out. If you would like to checkout this book, you can reserve another copy
We have requested the book for you!
Your request is successful and it will be processed during the Library working hours. Please check the status of your request in My Requests.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place your request. Kindly try again later.
Journal Article
Systematic failure to operate on colorectal cancer liver metastases in California
2020
Overview
Background Despite evidence that liver resection improves survival in patients with colorectal cancer liver metastases (CRCLM) and may be potentially curative, there are no population‐level data examining utilization and predictors of liver resection in the United States. Methods This is a population‐based cross‐sectional study. We ed data on patients with synchronous CRCLM using California Cancer Registry from 2000 to 2012 and linked the records to the Office of Statewide Health Planning Inpatient Database. Quantum Geographic Information System (QGIS) was used to map liver resection rates to California counties. Patient‐ and hospital‐level predictors were determined using mixed‐effects logistic regression. Results Of the 24 828 patients diagnosed with stage‐IV colorectal cancer, 16 382 (70%) had synchronous CRCLM. Overall liver resection rate for synchronous CRCLM was 10% (county resection rates ranging from 0% to 33%) with no improvement over time. There was no correlation between county incidence of synchronous CRCLM and rate of resection (R2 = .0005). On multivariable analysis, sociodemographic and treatment‐initiating‐facility characteristics were independently associated with receipt of liver resection after controlling for patient disease‐ and comorbidity‐related factors. For instance, odds of liver resection decreased in patients with black race (OR 0.75 vs white) and Medicaid insurance (OR 0.62 vs private/PPO); but increased with initial treatment at NCI hospital (OR 1.69 vs Non‐NCI hospital), or a high volume (10 + cases/year) (OR 1.40 vs low volume) liver surgery hospital. Conclusion In this population‐based study, only 10% of patients with liver metastases underwent liver resection. Furthermore, the study identifies wide variations and significant population‐level disparities in the utilization of liver resection for CRCLM in California. In this population‐based study, only 10% of patients with liver metastases underwent liver reseaction. Further, the study identifies wide variations and significant population‐level disparities in the utilization of liver resection for CRCLM in California.
