Skip to search boxSkip to navigationSkip to main content

Impact of Diagnosing Urologists and Hospitals on the Use of Radical Cystectomy

  • Vishnukamal Golla
    ,
  • Yong Shan
    ,
  • Hemalkumar B. Mehta
    ,
  • ,
  • Douglas S. Tyler
    ,
  • Jacques Baillargeon
*Corresponding author for this work
  • University of California at Los Angeles
    ,
  • University of Texas Medical Branch at Galveston
    ,
  • Medical College of Georgia
    ,
  • ,
  • University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center
    ,
  • Cedars-Sinai Medical Center
Scholary Output:
Contribution to journal
Article
Peer-review

Open access

Sustainable Development Goals

  • SDG 3 - Good Health and Well-being
    SDG 3 Good Health and Well

Abstract

Background: One out of five patients with muscle-invasive bladder cancer undergo radical cystectomy—a guideline-recommended treatment. Previous studies have primarily evaluated patient characteristics associated with the use of radical cystectomy, ignoring potential nesting of data. Objective: To determine the impact of patient, diagnosing urologist, and hospital characteristics on the variation in the use of radical cystectomy. Design, setting, and participants: This is a retrospective cohort study using the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Registry (SEER)-Medicare linked database. Outcome measurements and statistical analysis: A total of 7097 muscle-invasive bladder cancer patients and 4601 diagnosing urologists affiliated to 822 hospitals from January 1, 2002 to December 31, 2012 were analyzed. Multilevel logistic regression analyses were used to determine variation and factors associated with the use of radical cystectomy. Results and limitations: Of the 7097 patients, only 27% underwent radical cystectomy. The intraclass correlation coefficient for variation in the use of radical cystectomy attributed to the hospital level was 4.3%. Higher radical cystectomy volume by diagnosing urologists (more than five vs zero to one surgery: odds ratio [OR], 1.27; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.00–1.62) and hospitals (more than five vs zero to four surgeries: OR,1.48; 95% CI, 1.14–1.93) was associated with increased use of radical cystectomy. Patients diagnosed by female rather than male urologists were more likely to undergo radical cystectomy (OR, 1.32; 95% CI, 1.07–1.62). Conclusions: We found that 4.3% variation in the use of radical cystectomy was attributed to the hospital level, leaving 95.7% variation in use unexplained. We identified significantly increased use among higher-volume and female diagnosing urologists. These findings support further investigation into measures beyond hospital volume, which largely impact the utilization of radical cystectomy. Patient summary: In this large population-based study, we found that 4.3% of variation in the use of radical cystectomy was attributed to the hospital level, leaving 95.7% variation in use unexplained. Higher radical cystectomy volume of diagnosing urologists and female urologists were independently associated with increased use of radical cystectomy. These findings support further investigation into measures beyond hospital volume, which largely impact the utilization of radical cystectomy.

Publication Information

Output type

Scholary Output:
Contribution to journal
Article
Peer-review

Original language

English (US)

Pages from-to (Number of pages)

Pages 27-36 (10 pages)

Journal (Volume, Issue Number)

European Urology Open Science (Volume 19)

Publication milestones

  • Published - 07/2020

Publication status

Published - 07/2020

ISSN

2666-1691

Publication IDs

  • Scopus: 85087063396

Publication metrics

Metrics

Scopus
citations
SciVal
Author count
12
SciVal
Paper percentile
50
Fractional count
1
Fractional count
0.08
Fractional count
11
Fractional count
0.92
Fractional count
1
Fractional count
1

PlumX, opens in new tab

Citation count
1
Captures
11
Social media
250153

Funding Details

Funding/Support and role of the sponsor : This study was funded by the Kahlert Foundation and the American Urological Association (AUA) Residency Research Award. This study was conducted with the support of a Department of Defense Peer Reviewed Cancer Research Program (PRCRP) Career Development Award (W81XWH1710576) (SBW). The funding sources were used for the design and conduct of the study. The funding sources had no role in the collection, management, analysis, and interpretation of the data; preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript; and decision to submit the manuscript for publication. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institutes of Health.
FundersFunding number
American Urological Association
-
Kahlert Foundation
-
DOD
W81XWH1710576