0
We're unable to sign you in at this time. Please try again in a few minutes.
Retry
We were able to sign you in, but your subscription(s) could not be found. Please try again in a few minutes.
Retry
There may be a problem with your account. Please contact the AMA Service Center to resolve this issue.
Contact the AMA Service Center:
Telephone: 1 (800) 262-2350 or 1 (312) 670-7827  *   Email: subscriptions@jamanetwork.com
Error Message ......
Paper |

Effect of Hospital Type and Volume on Lymph Node Evaluation for Gastric and Pancreatic Cancer FREE

Karl Y. Bilimoria, MD, MS; Mark S. Talamonti, MD; Jeffrey D. Wayne, MD; James S. Tomlinson, MD; Andrew K. Stewart, MA; David P. Winchester, MD; Clifford Y. Ko, MD, MS, MSHS; David J. Bentrem, MD
[+] Author Affiliations

Author Affiliations: Cancer Programs, American College of Surgeons (Drs Bilimoria, Winchester, and Ko and Mr Stewart) Chicago, Illinois; and Departments of Surgery, Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University (Drs Bilimoria, Wayne, and Bentrem), and Evanston Northwestern Healthcare (Drs Talamonti and Winchester), Chicago, Illinois, and University of California, Los Angeles; and Veterans Affairs Greater Los Angeles Healthcare System (Drs Tomlinson and Ko).


Arch Surg. 2008;143(7):671-678. doi:10.1001/archsurg.143.7.671.
Text Size: A A A
Published online

Hypothesis  For gastric and pancreatic cancer, regional lymph node evaluation is important to accurately stage disease in a patient and may be associated with improved survival. We hypothesized that National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN), National Cancer Institute (NCI)–designated institutions, and high-volume hospitals examine more lymph nodes for gastric and pancreatic malignant neoplasms than do low-volume centers and community hospitals.

Design  Volume-outcome study.

Setting  Academic research.

Patients  Using the National Cancer Data Base (January 1, 2003, to December 31, 2004), patients were identified who underwent resection for gastric (n = 3088) and pancreatic (n = 1130 [pancreaticoduodenectomy only]) cancer.

Main Outcome Measures  Multivariable logistic regression analysis was used to assess the effect of hospital type and volume on nodal evaluation (≥15 nodes).

Results  Only 23.2% of patients with gastric cancer and 16.4% of patients with pancreatic cancer in the United States underwent evaluation of at least 15 lymph nodes. Patients undergoing surgery had more lymph nodes examined at NCCN-NCI hospitals than at community hospitals (median, 12 vs 6 for gastric cancer and 9 vs 6 for pancreatic cancer; P < .001). Patients at highest-volume hospitals had more lymph nodes examined than patients at low-volume hospitals (median, 10 vs 6 for gastric cancer and 8 vs 6 for pancreatic cancer; P < .001). On multivariable analysis, patients undergoing surgery at NCCN-NCI and high-volume hospitals were more likely to have at least 15 lymph nodes evaluated compared with patients undergoing surgery at community hospitals and low-volume centers (P < .001 and P =.02, respectively).

Conclusions  Nodal examination is important for staging, adjuvant therapy decision making, and clinical trial stratification. Moreover, differences in nodal evaluation may contribute to improved long-term outcomes at NCCN-NCI centers and high-volume hospitals for patients with gastric and pancreatic cancer.

Figures in this Article

Despite recent advances in surgery and adjuvant therapy, the prognosis for patients with gastric and pancreatic cancer remains poor.1 Lymph node metastases have been shown to be a powerful prognostic factor after resection of early-stage gastric25 and pancreatic610 malignant neoplasms. Lymphadenectomy with appropriate pathologic evaluation is a critical component of complete staging. If too few lymph nodes are examined, an accurate determination of nodal involvement is less likely because metastatic lymph nodes could fail to be examined. As a result, a patient's disease may be understaged by being improperly designated as node-negative disease. This inaccuracy in establishing the stage of disease affects prognostic information, adjuvant treatment decisions, and stratification for clinical trials.

Recent efforts have attempted to quantify the number of nodes that need to be evaluated to deem a patient with gastric or pancreatic cancer free of nodal metastases with a reasonable degree of certainty.1117 These studies have demonstrated that increasing numbers of lymph nodes examined are associated with improved survival for gastric and pancreatic cancer, presumably through better staging or stage migration.18 Although the precise number varies, current guidelines recommend resection and pathologic evaluation of at least 15 regional lymph nodes for gastric and pancreatic cancer.1113,15,17,19,20

An association has been demonstrated between increased hospital surgical volume and higher long-term survival rates for patients undergoing gastrectomy and pancreatectomy, but factors responsible for this relationship remain elusive.2123 Because the number of lymph nodes examined affects outcomes, differences in the number of lymph nodes examined may contribute to the volume-outcome association. However, it is unknown whether nodal evaluation differs by hospital type or volume for gastrectomy and pancreaticoduodenectomy.

Using the National Cancer Data Base (NCDB),2426 patients who underwent resection for gastric and pancreatic cancer with curative intent were examined. The objectives of this study were (1) to assess lymph node evaluation for gastrectomy and pancreaticoduodenectomy using a large national cancer registry and (2) to identify patient, tumor, and hospital factors associated with examination of at least 15 lymph nodes for gastric and pancreatic cancer. To our knowledge, this is the first study to examine differences in nodal evaluation by hospital type or volume for gastric and pancreatic cancer and is the first to assess factors associated with nodal evaluation for pancreatic cancer.

DATA ACQUISITION AND STUDY POPULATION

Using the NCDB, patients with pancreatic and gastric cancers diagnosed from January 1, 1995, to December 31, 2004, were identified based on International Classification of Diseases for Oncology, Third Edition (ICD-O-3)27 site codes. Gastric and pancreatic cancer cases were included if the histologic findings were consistent with adenocarcinoma based on ICD-O-3 histologic codes. Patients who underwent surgery were identified based on the Commission on Cancer's Facility Oncology Registry Data Standards28 site-specific procedure coding. For gastric cancer, only patients undergoing gastric resection (partial, subtotal, near-total, total, or hemigastrectomy) were included in this study. For pancreatic cancer, only patients undergoing pancreaticoduodenectomy were included in this study. For gastric and pancreatic cancer, nodal metastases have been shown to be a confounding factor because patients with node-positive disease have a higher likelihood of having more lymph nodes examined.1517,29 Therefore, patients were excluded if they had nodal involvement or if they had no information reported regarding nodal evaluation. Patients were also excluded if they had in situ disease or distant metastases or had received neoadjuvant chemotherapy, or neoadjuvant radiotherapy. Trends in nodal examination were assessed from January 1, 1995, to December 31, 2004, using the χ2 test for trend.

The Commission on Cancer classifies hospitals into academic and community centers based on case volume and access to cancer-related services and specialists. Academic centers must be primarily affiliated with a medical school or a designated National Cancer Institute (NCI) cancer center. In addition, 19 of 20 adult National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) centers and 32 of 37 NCI-designated comprehensive cancer centers report to the NCDB. The NCCN and NCI hospitals were combined for this analysis. Next, all hospitals were ranked in order of increasing mean annual hospital procedure volume, and cutoff points were selected that sorted patients into 4 approximately equal groups (quartiles). This was done separately for patients undergoing gastrectomy and pancreaticoduodenectomy. Patients were excluded if the reporting facility was not the hospital in which the surgery was performed (n = 93 for gastrectomy and n = 35 for pancreaticoduodenectomy).

STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

Categorical variables were compared using χ2 tests. The Bonferroni correction was used for multiple comparisons. Medians were compared using the Mann-Whitney test. Multivariable logistic regression analysis was used to identify factors associated with evaluation of at least 15 lymph nodes. An optimal lymph node evaluation was defined for this study as resection and pathologic examination of at least 15 regional lymph nodes. Because patient-level socioeconomic data are not collected by the NCDB, median household income was ascertained through linkage with 2000 US Census Bureau data on the basis of the patient's zip code at the time of diagnosis.30

Hospital type and volume were inserted into the model separately. The logistic regression model accounted for clustering of outcomes within hospitals using robust variance estimates; however, this had little effect on the results.31 The Hosmer-Lemeshow goodness-of-fit test and C statistic were used to assess the fit of the model.32

The level of statistical significance was set at P < .05. All P values reported are 2-tailed. Statistical analyses were performed using commercially available software (SPSS, version 14; SPSS Inc, Chicago, Illinois; and STATA, version 9.0; StataCorp LP, College Station, Texas). The study protocol was approved by the Northwestern University Institutional Review Board, Chicago, Illinois.

From January 1, 1995, to December 31, 2004, the median lymph node count increased for gastric cancer from 5 to 7 and for pancreatic cancer from 4 to 7 (P < .001 for both). Similarly, the proportion of patients undergoing examination of at least 15 lymph nodes increased for gastric cancer from 17.4% to 24.7% and for pancreatic cancer from 9.7% to 18.5% (P < .001 for both) (Figure 1).

Place holder to copy figure label and caption
Figure 1.

Trends in lymph node evaluation for gastric and pancreatic cancer, 1995 to 2004. P < .001 by linear χ2 test.

Graphic Jump Location

To evaluate the most current data on nodal evaluation, patients were limited to those whose cancer was diagnosed from January 1, 2003, to December 31, 2004, yielding 3088 patients undergoing gastrectomy and 1130 patients undergoing pancreaticoduodenectomy. For gastric cancer, 11.6% underwent surgery at NCCN-NCI hospitals, 34.0% at other academic hospitals, and 54.4% at community hospitals. For pancreatic cancer, 19.0% underwent surgery at NCCN-NCI hospitals, 43.3% at other academic hospitals, and 37.7% at community hospitals. The differences in patient characteristics by whether at least 15 nodes were examined are given in Table 1.

Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 1. Characteristics of Patients Undergoing Gastric or Pancreatic Cancer Resections, 2003 to 2004
NODAL EVALUATION FOR GASTRIC CANCER

For gastric cancer, the median number of nodes examined was 7 (interquartile range, 3-14) (Table 2 and Figure 2). The NCCN-NCI centers examined more lymph nodes than other academic and community hospitals (median, 12 at NCCN-NCI, 8 at other academic, and 6 at community hospitals; P < .001 for all). Patients undergoing surgery at highest-volume hospitals had significantly more lymph nodes examined than patients at high-, moderate-, and low-volume centers (median, 10 for highest, 8 for high, 6 for moderate, and 6 for low; P < .001 for all except between moderate vs low). Among all patients undergoing gastrectomy, 256 patients (8.3%) had no lymph nodes examined (4.2% at NCCN-NCI, 7.3% at other academic, and 9.8% at community hospitals; P =.005 for NCCN-NCI vs community).

Place holder to copy figure label and caption
Figure 2.

Numbers of lymph nodes examined for gastric cancer (A) (median, 7 nodes; 23.2% had ≥ 15 nodes examined) and pancreatic cancer (B) (median, 7 nodes; 16.4% had ≥ 15 nodes examined), 2003 to 2004.

Graphic Jump Location
Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 2. Nodal Evaluation for Gastric or Pancreatic Cancer, 2003 to 2004

Of 3088 patients who underwent gastrectomy, only 717 (23.2%) had at least 15 lymph nodes examined (Table 2). Patients undergoing gastrectomy had at least 15 lymph nodes examined more frequently at NCCN-NCI centers than at other academic and community hospitals (42.3% at NCCN-NCI, 25.5% at other academic, and 17.7% at community hospitals; P < .001 for all). Patients at highest-volume centers had at least 15 lymph nodes examined more frequently than patients at high-, moderate-, and low-volume centers (34.7% for highest, 22.2% for high, 17.8% for moderate, and 16.8% for low; P < .001 for all).

Using a multivariable logistic regression model, factors associated with examination of at least 15 lymph nodes were assessed adjusting for potential confounders (Table 3). Patients were more likely to have at least 15 lymph nodes examined for gastric cancer if they were younger (odds ratio [OR], 1.01; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.01-1.03; P =.005), female (OR, 1.44; 95% CI, 1.20-1.74; P < .001), or Asian (OR, 1.61; 95% CI, 1.01-2.56; P =.04 compared with patients of white race/ethnicity) or underwent total gastrectomy (OR, 1.44; 95% CI, 1.18-1.76; P < .001). Patients with gastric cancer were also more likely to have at least 15 lymph nodes examined at NCCN-NCI centers than at other academic (OR, 0.40; 95% CI, 0.21-0.76; P =.005) and community (OR, 0.28; 95% CI, 0.15-0.52; P < .001) hospitals. Similarly, patients undergoing gastrectomy at highest-volume hospitals were more likely to have at least 15 lymph nodes examined than were patients undergoing gastrectomy at low-volume hospitals (OR, 0.44; 95% CI, 0.27-0.70; P =.001).

Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 3. Logistic Regression Model Predicting Examination of at Least 15 Lymph Nodes for Gastric or Pancreatic Cancer, 2003 to 2004a
NODAL EVALUATION FOR PANCREATIC CANCER

For pancreatic cancer, the median number of lymph nodes examined was 7 (interquartile range, 4-11) (Table 2 and Figure 2). Patients who underwent pancreaticoduodenectomy at NCCN-NCI centers had more nodes examined than patients who underwent pancreaticoduodenectomy at other academic and community hospitals (median, 9 at NCCN-NCI, 7 at other academic, and 6 at community hospitals; P < .001 for all). Patients undergoing resection at highest-volume hospitals had significantly more lymph nodes examined than patients undergoing resection at low-volume centers (median, 8 for highest and 6 for low; P =.004). Among all patients undergoing pancreaticoduodenectomy, 50 (4.4%) had no lymph nodes examined (4.7% at NCCN-NCI, 5.9% at other academic, and 2.6% at community hospitals; P =.51).

Of 1130 patients who underwent pancreaticoduodenectomy, only 185 (16.4%) had at least 15 lymph nodes examined. Patients undergoing pancreaticoduodenectomy had at least 15 lymph nodes examined more frequently at NCCN-NCI centers than at other academic and community hospitals (27.0% at NCCN-NCI, 15.3% at other academic, and 12.2% at community hospitals; P < .001 for all). Patients at highest-volume centers had at least 15 lymph nodes examined more frequently than patients at low-volume centers (19.3% for highest and 10.6% for low, P =.04).

A multivariate logistic regression model was again used to assess factors associated with evaluation of at least 15 lymph nodes. No patient or tumor factors were significantly associated with having at least 15 lymph nodes evaluated for pancreaticoduodenectomy. Patients with pancreatic cancer were more likely to have at least 15 lymph nodes examined at NCCN-NCI hospitals than at other academic centers (OR, 0.49; 95% CI, 0.28-0.84; P =.01) and community hospitals (OR, 0.37; 95% CI, 0.21-0.62; P < .001) (Table 3). Similarly, patients treated at highest-volume hospitals were more likely to have at least 15 lymph nodes examined than patients treated at low-volume hospitals (P =.02). Hospital type and volume were the only independent predictors in the model associated with examination of at least 15 lymph nodes for pancreatic cancer.

For gastric and pancreatic cancer, the definition of an optimal lymph node evaluation remains controversial.3336 Single-institution and population-based studies1117 have documented improved survival with resection and pathologic examination of increasing numbers of lymph nodes for gastric and pancreatic cancer. However, it is difficult to discern whether this improvement in outcomes is a result of improved staging (stage migration) or if there is a therapeutic benefit to more extensive lymphadenectomy. Alternatively, the improvement in survival may be a surrogate for better overall surgical technique, pathologic examination, perioperative care, adjuvant treatment use, or cancer surveillance activities. Regardless, the optimal number of lymph nodes required to reliably stage the disease in a patient as node negative has been found to range from 10 to 15 nodes for gastric and pancreatic cancer, and the American Joint Committee on Cancer and the NCCN have adopted this recommendation to define an optimal lymph node evaluation.1117,20 However, compliance with these recommendations by hospital type and volume has not been previously examined, to our knowledge.

The first objective of this study was to assess lymph node evaluation for gastric and pancreatic cancer in the United States using the NCDB. Previous population-based studies have found the median number of lymph nodes examined to be 8 for gastric cancer11,16,29 and 6 to 7 for pancreatic cancer15,17 (comparable to our median of 7 nodes for gastric and pancreatic cancer). These studies included patients with node-positive disease, and the findings indicated that the median lymph node counts were significantly higher in patients with nodal metastases compared with those with node-negative disease. This suggests that surgical resection or pathologic examination in the setting of a suspicious or positive node results in examination of more lymph nodes or that examination of increasing numbers of lymph nodes is associated with a higher likelihood of identifying a positive lymph node. Therefore, we excluded patients with node-positive disease from our analyses.

The proportion of patients in our study who had at least 15 lymph nodes examined was similar to previously reported rates of 17.6% to 32% for gastric cancer and 19% for pancreatic cancer, depending on the time frame studied and whether patients with node-positive disease were included.11,16,17,29,37 The period of our study includes an era when lymph node counts were not emphasized and were not discussed as quality metrics. Therefore, we found that the proportion of patients undergoing evaluation of at least 15 lymph nodes increased significantly from January 1, 1995, to December 31, 2004, as more emphasis has been placed on lymph node counts; however, large proportions of patients with gastric and pancreatic cancer are still inadequately staged. Numerous factors may be responsible for low nodal counts, including surgical resection, patient characteristics that may affect nodal counts, and pathologic evaluation (the method of evaluation and the use of advanced techniques).

The second objective of this study was to assess other patient, tumor, and hospital factors associated with the evaluation of at least 15 lymph nodes for gastric and pancreatic cancer. Similar to our results, 2 previous studies11,29 found that lymph node evaluation for gastric cancer is associated with patient age, sex, race/ethnicity, and type of gastrectomy (total gastrectomy vs lesser resection). However, no study (to our knowledge) has examined factors affecting the extent of lymph node evaluation for pancreatic cancer. We found no patient or tumor factors that were associated with lymph node evaluation for adenocarcinoma of the head of the pancreas.

Third, we assessed the variability of lymph node evaluation by hospital type and volume. High-volume hospitals and designated cancer centers have better long-term survival rates than low-volume hospitals and non–designated cancer centers.2123 However, the factors contributing to this relationship between volume and outcome remain poorly understood. Previous studies38,39 have shown that high-volume hospitals and designated cancer centers were more likely to use surgery and multimodality therapy for pancreatic adenocarcinoma. Birkmeyer et al21,22 demonstrated that patients undergoing high-risk cancer surgery at high-volume centers were more likely to have preoperative stress tests, invasive perioperative monitoring, and consultation with medical or radiation oncologists compared with patients undergoing high-risk cancer surgery at low-volume centers. In the present study, patients treated at high-volume hospitals and designated cancer centers were more likely to have at least 15 lymph nodes evaluated. For pancreaticoduodenectomy, hospital type and volume were the only significant predictors of having at least 15 lymph nodes examined. Multiple factors at high-volume hospitals may contribute to this finding, including the resection and pathologic examination.34,35,40 It may be that cancer centers with a particular interest in gastrointestinal cancer surgery emphasize lymph node evaluation more than other hospitals. Single-institution investigations and clinical trials from centers that specialize in gastric or pancreatic cancer surgery have demonstrated higher rates of lymph node examination.9,10,12,41,42 However, without the assistance of national cancer registry data, it is difficult to assess nodal evaluation at low-volume centers. For gastric and pancreatic cancer, this is the first study (to our knowledge) to examine differences in nodal evaluation by hospital type or volume and to specifically provide insight into nodal evaluation at low-volume and community hospitals.

The results of this study should be interpreted in light of some limitations. First, all hospitals that report to the NCDB must be approved by the Commission on Cancer. Low-volume and community hospitals that submit data to the NCDB may have a higher level of cancer specialization than smaller hospitals in the United States that do not report to the NCDB. Therefore, differences in lymph node evaluation by hospital type and volume would likely be greater if all hospitals in the United States were compared. In addition, there is variation among hospitals in quality and techniques (ie, fat clearance) used in the pathologic examination of lymph nodes. Second, we used 15 lymph nodes to define an optimal nodal evaluation. Fifteen nodes is the recommended threshold for gastrectomy per the American Joint Committee on Cancer, and recent studies9,10,12,41,42 demonstrated that, although the relationship is continuous, 15 lymph nodes is also the threshold for pancreatic cancer. Third, the analyses are limited to the variables in the database. For example, the effect of body mass index cannot be examined because cancer registries in the United States do not collect height and weight information. The NCDB also does not currently have data on surgeons. Surgical technique has an effect on the number of lymph nodes resected; however, nodal examination rates are also dependent on the diligence of the pathologist. Nodal examination should be considered a systems issue and should be examined at the hospital level.

Because of similar concerns about nodal evaluation for colon cancer, the NCCN, American Society for Clinical Oncology, American College of Surgeons, and the Commission on Cancer developed a hospital-level quality measure requiring resection and pathologic examination of at least 12 regional lymph nodes, and the National Quality Forum recently endorsed the measure for quality surveillance.4346 The NCDB will serve as the monitoring mechanism for the colon nodal evaluation measure. Hospitals reporting to the NCDB will be able to examine their performance in comparison with 1440 other NCDB hospitals. Because the need to assess at least 12 lymph nodes for colon cancer has gained increasing attention during the past decade, multidisciplinary initiatives have resulted in improved lymph node examination rates for colon cancer at the local, regional, and national levels.47

Our findings demonstrate that there is significant variability in nodal evaluation for gastric and pancreatic cancer by hospital type and volume, and a quality measure to assess nodal evaluation for these malignant neoplasms is reasonable. Multiple institutions performing standard lymphadenectomies (as opposed to extended lymphadenectomy) have demonstrated that examination of at least 15 lymph nodes is an achievable benchmark.9,10,12,41,42 Moreover, we have shown that nodal examination rates for gastric and pancreatic cancer have improved over time. Because clinical trials are critical to improving outcomes for gastric and pancreatic cancer, it is important to stratify patients based on accurate staging, and lymph node status is perhaps the most important factor by which to stratify patients with early-stage disease. The NCDB is in the process of developing additional quality measures for other malignant neoplasms, and nodal evaluation for gastric and pancreatic cancer in the United States should be included as quality surveillance measures.

Nodal status is a powerful predictor of outcome, and every reasonable attempt should be made to assess the optimal number of lymph nodes to accurately stage disease in patients with gastric and pancreatic cancer. A volume-outcome association has long been recognized for cancer surgery, yet factors responsible for this relationship have remained elusive. Differences in lymph node examination may partially underlie the improved long-term survival observed at cancer centers and high-volume hospitals for gastrectomy and pancreaticoduodenectomy. Further investigation is needed to identify the reasons for better lymph node examination rates at NCCN-NCI centers and high-volume hospitals and to transfer those processes to low-volume and community hospitals. Examination of at least 15 lymph nodes is an appropriate quality surveillance measure for gastric and pancreatic cancer because it is a feasible, achievable, and modifiable factor that is associated with improved outcomes.

Correspondence: Karl Y. Bilimoria, MD, MS, Department of Surgery, Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, 251 E Huron St, Galter 3-150, Chicago, IL 60611 (k-bilimoria@northwestern.edu).

Accepted for Publication: December 19, 2007.

Author Contributions:Study concept and design: Bilimoria, Talamonti, Tomlinson, Stewart, Ko, and Bentrem. Acquisition of data: Bilimoria, Stewart, and Ko. Analysis and interpretation of data: Bilimoria, Talamonti, Wayne, Tomlinson, Winchester, Ko, and Bentrem. Drafting of the manuscript: Bilimoria, Talamonti, and Bentrem. Critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content: Bilimoria, Talamonti, Wayne, Tomlinson, Stewart, Winchester, Ko, and Bentrem. Statistical analysis: Bilimoria, Stewart, Ko, and Bentrem. Obtained funding: Bilimoria. Administrative, technical, and material support: Bilimoria, Talamonti, Winchester, Ko, and Bentrem. Study supervision: Talamonti, Winchester, Ko, and Bentrem.

Financial Disclosure: None reported.

Funding/Support: This study was supported by the American College of Surgeons Clinical Scholars in Residence program (Dr Bilimoria) and by a grant from the Goldberg Family Charitable Trust (Dr Bilimoria). The NCDB is supported by the American College of Surgeons, the Commission on Cancer, and the American Cancer Society.

Previous Presentation: This paper was presented at the Annual Meeting of the Western Surgical Association; November 6, 2007; Colorado Springs, Colorado; and is published after peer review and revision. The discussions that follow this article are based on the originally submitted manuscript and not the revised manuscript.

Jemal  ASiegel  RWard  EMurray  TXu  JThun  MJ Cancer statistics, 2007. CA Cancer J Clin 2007;57 (1) 43- 66
PubMed Link to Article
Peeters  KCKattan  MWHartgrink  HH  et al.  Validation of a nomogram for predicting disease-specific survival after an R0 resection for gastric carcinoma. Cancer 2005;103 (4) 702- 707
PubMed Link to Article
Siewert  JRBöttcher  KStein  HJRoder  JD Relevant prognostic factors in gastric cancer: ten-year results of the German Gastric Cancer Study. Ann Surg 1998;228 (4) 449- 461
PubMed Link to Article
Kodera  YYamamura  YShimizu  Y  et al.  The number of metastatic lymph nodes: a promising prognostic determinant for gastric carcinoma in the latest edition of the TNM classification. J Am Coll Surg 1998;187 (6) 597- 603
PubMed Link to Article
Kim  JPLee  JHKim  SJYu  HJYang  HK Clinicopathologic characteristics and prognostic factors in 10 783 patients with gastric cancer. Gastric Cancer 1998;1 (2) 125- 133
PubMed Link to Article
Geer  RJBrennan  MF Prognostic indicators for survival after resection of pancreatic adenocarcinoma. Am J Surg 1993;165 (1) 68- 73
PubMed Link to Article
Sarela  AITurnbull  ADCoit  DGKlimstra  DBrennan  MFKarpeh  M Accurate lymph node staging is of greater prognostic importance than subclassification of the T2 category for gastric adenocarcinoma. Ann Surg Oncol 2003;10 (7) 783- 791
PubMed Link to Article
Schmidt  CMPowell  ESYiannoutsos  CT  et al.  Pancreaticoduodenectomy: a 20-year experience in 516 patients. Arch Surg 2004;139 (7) 718- 727
PubMed Link to Article
Yeo  CJCameron  JLSohn  TA  et al.  Pancreaticoduodenectomy with or without extended retroperitoneal lymphadenectomy for periampullary adenocarcinoma: comparison of morbidity and mortality and short-term outcome. Ann Surg 1999;229 (5) 613- 624
PubMed Link to Article
Brennan  MFKattan  MWKlimstra  DConlon  K Prognostic nomogram for patients undergoing resection for adenocarcinoma of the pancreas. Ann Surg 2004;240 (2) 293- 298
PubMed Link to Article
Bouvier  AMHaas  OPiard  FRoignot  PBonithon-Kopp  CFaivre  J How many nodes must be examined to accurately stage gastric carcinomas? results from a population based study. Cancer 2002;94 (11) 2862- 2866
PubMed Link to Article
Karpeh  MSLeon  LKlimstra  DBrennan  MF Lymph node staging in gastric cancer: is location more important than number? an analysis of 1,038 patients. Ann Surg 2000;232 (3) 362- 371
PubMed Link to Article
Lee  HKYang  HKKim  WHLee  KUChoe  KJKim  JP Influence of the number of lymph nodes examined on staging of gastric cancer. Br J Surg 2001;88 (10) 1408- 1412
PubMed Link to Article
Pawlik  TMGleisner  ALCameron  JL  et al.  Prognostic relevance of lymph node ratio following pancreaticoduodenectomy for pancreatic cancer. Surgery 2007;141 (5) 610- 618
PubMed Link to Article
Schwarz  RESmith  DD Extent of lymph node retrieval and pancreatic cancer survival: information from a large US population database. Ann Surg Oncol 2006;13 (9) 1189- 1200
PubMed Link to Article
Smith  DDSchwarz  RRSchwarz  RE Impact of total lymph node count on staging and survival after gastrectomy for gastric cancer: data from a large US-population database. J Clin Oncol 2005;23 (28) 7114- 7124
PubMed Link to Article
Tomlinson  JSJain  SBentrem  DJ  et al.  Accuracy of staging node-negative pancreas cancer: a potential quality measure. Arch Surg 2007;142 (8) 767- 774
PubMed Link to Article
Feinstein  ARSosin  DMWells  CK The Will Rogers phenomenon: stage migration and new diagnostic techniques as a source of misleading statistics for survival in cancer. N Engl J Med 1985;312 (25) 1604- 1608
PubMed Link to Article
Kim  JPKim  YWYang  HKNoh  DY Significant prognostic factors by multivariate analysis of 3926 gastric cancer patients. World J Surg 1994;18 (6) 872- 878
PubMed Link to Article
American Joint Committee on Cancer Staging, American Joint Committee on Cancer Staging Manual. 6th ed. Chicago, IL Springer-Verlag NY Inc2002;
Birkmeyer  JDSun  YWong  SLStukel  TA Hospital volume and late survival after cancer surgery. Ann Surg 2007;245 (5) 777- 783
PubMed Link to Article
Birkmeyer  NJGoodney  PPStukel  TAHillner  BEBirkmeyer  JD Do cancer centers designated by the National Cancer Institute have better surgical outcomes? Cancer 2005;103 (3) 435- 441
PubMed Link to Article
Fong  YGonen  MRubin  DRadzyner  MBrennan  MF Long-term survival is superior after resection for cancer in high-volume centers. Ann Surg 2005;242 (4) 540- 547
PubMed
Berger  ACWatson  JCRoss  EAHoffman  JP The metastatic/examined lymph node ratio is an important prognostic factor after pancreaticoduodenectomy for pancreatic adenocarcinoma. Am Surg 2004;70 (3) 235- 240
PubMed
Winchester  DPStewart  AKBura  CJones  RS The National Cancer Data Base: a clinical surveillance and quality improvement tool. J Surg Oncol 2004;85 (1) 1- 3
PubMed Link to Article
Bilimoria  KYStewart  AKWinchester  DPKo  CY The National Cancer Data Base: a powerful initiative to improve cancer care in the United States. Ann Surg Oncol 2008;15 (3) 683- 690
PubMed Link to Article
 International Classification of Diseases for Oncology. 3rd ed. Geneva, Switzerland World Health Organization2000;
 Facility Oncology Registry Data Standards.  Chicago, IL Commission on Cancer2004;
Baxter  NNTuttle  TM Inadequacy of lymph node staging in gastric cancer patients: a population-based study. Ann Surg Oncol 2005;12 (12) 981- 987
PubMed Link to Article
US Census Bureau Web site, Census 2000. http://www.census.gov/main/www/cen2000.html. Accessed January 21, 2007
Panageas  KSSchrag  DRiedel  EBach  PBBegg  CB The effect of clustering of outcomes on the association of procedure volume and surgical outcomes. Ann Intern Med 2003;139 (8) 658- 665
PubMed Link to Article
Hosmer  JLemeshow  S Applied Logistic Regression.  New York, NY John Wiley & Sons1999;
Brennan  MF Lymph-node dissection for gastric cancer. N Engl J Med 1999;340 (12) 956- 958
PubMed Link to Article
Dicken  BJBigam  DLCass  CMackey  JRJoy  AAHamilton  SM Gastric adenocarcinoma: review and considerations for future directions. Ann Surg 2005;241 (1) 27- 39
PubMed
Stojadinovic  ABrooks  AHoos  AJaques  DPConlon  KCBrennan  MF An evidence-based approach to the surgical management of resectable pancreatic adenocarcinoma. J Am Coll Surg 2003;196 (6) 954- 964
PubMed Link to Article
Michalski  CWKleeff  JWente  MNDiener  MKBüchler  MWFriess  H Systematic review and meta-analysis of standard and extended lymphadenectomy in pancreaticoduodenectomy for pancreatic cancer. Br J Surg 2007;94 (3) 265- 273
PubMed Link to Article
Hundahl  SAPhillips  JLMenck  HR The National Cancer Data Base Report on poor survival of U.S. gastric carcinoma patients treated with gastrectomy: fifth edition American Joint Committee on Cancer staging, proximal disease, and the “different disease” hypothesis. Cancer 2000;88 (4) 921- 932
PubMed Link to Article
Bilimoria  KYBentrem  DJKo  CY  et al.  Multimodality therapy for pancreatic cancer in the U.S.: utilization, outcomes, and the effect of hospital volume. Cancer 2007;110 (6) 1227- 1234
PubMed Link to Article
Bilimoria  KYBentrem  DJKo  CYStewart  AKWinchester  DPTalamonti  MS National failure to operate on early stage pancreatic cancer. Ann Surg 2007;246 (2) 173- 180
PubMed Link to Article
Scott  KWGrace  RH Detection of lymph node metastases in colorectal carcinoma before and after fat clearance. Br J Surg 1989;76 (11) 1165- 1167
PubMed Link to Article
Pedrazzoli  SDiCarlo  VDionigi  R  et al. Lymphadenectomy Study Group, Standard versus extended lymphadenectomy associated with pancreatoduodenectomy in the surgical treatment of adenocarcinoma of the head of the pancreas: a multicenter, prospective, randomized study. Ann Surg 1998;228 (4) 508- 517
PubMed Link to Article
Bonenkamp  JJHermans  JSasako  Mvan de Velde  CJDutch Gastric Cancer Group, Extended lymph-node dissection for gastric cancer. N Engl J Med 1999;340 (12) 908- 914
PubMed Link to Article
Perlin  JBKolodner  RMRoswell  RH The Veterans Health Administration: quality, value, accountability, and information as transforming strategies for patient-centered care. Healthc Pap 2005;5 (4) 10- 24
PubMed Link to Article
National Quality Forum Web site, Quality of cancer care performance measures: phase II. http://www.qualityforum.org/projects/ongoing/cancer/index.asp. Accessed April 9, 2008
Baxter  NNVirnig  DJRothenberger  DAMorris  AMJessurun  JVirnig  BA Lymph node evaluation in colorectal cancer patients: a population-based study. J Natl Cancer Inst 2005;97 (3) 219- 225
PubMed Link to Article
Gordon  TABowman  HMTielsch  JMBass  EBBurleyson  GPCameron  JL Statewide regionalization of pancreaticoduodenectomy and its effect on in-hospital mortality. Ann Surg 1998;228 (1) 71- 78
PubMed Link to Article
Bilimoria  KYStewart  AKPalis  BEBentrem  DJTalamonti  MSKo  CY Adequacy and importance of nodal examination for colon cancer in the elderly. J Am Coll Surg 2008;206 (2) 247- 254
PubMed Link to Article

Anton J. Bilchik, MD, PhD, Santa Monica, California: There has been tremendous interest this year in establishing quality guidelines for cancer care. This culminated in the National Quality Forum in collaboration with the ACS [American College of Surgeons], ASCO [American Society for Clinical Oncology], NCCN, and the Commission on Cancer endorsing a 12-node minimum in colon cancer in April 2007. There have been mixed responses to this decision. On the one hand, it provides a proxy metric of quality and can be translated to other malignant neoplasms such as gastric and pancreatic cancer, as is suggested by Dr Bilimoria. It also provides important information for standardizing clinical trials. On the other hand, however, this information is in the hands of third-party payers and is already threatening reimbursement.

Without fully understanding the mechanisms behind the large variations in nodal sampling, some would argue that these benchmarks are premature for the following reasons: Who is responsible? Is it the surgeon? Most surgeons say they do the same operation every time. Is it the pathologist who is relying on an experienced pathology technician to find these nodes? Or is it related to the patient's immune systems, as was recently reported in Science?

So with this in mind, there are several possible interpretations of Dr Bilimoria's analysis. One, regardless of whether you are at an NCCN- or NCI-designated facility or a low- or high-volume center, 80% to 85% of patients in the United States have an inadequate operation. Two, volume is the most important factor whether you are at an academic center or not. Three, there is little difference in nodal sampling at high- or low-volume centers, 4 for gastric and only 2 for pancreas cancer. Four, lymph node sampling is actually improving over time. So which one is it?

Do any of these data translate to differences in survival, and should we perhaps revisit the role of more radical lymphadenectomies in gastric and pancreas cancer?

Finally, in light of recent randomized trials demonstrating a survival benefit with neoadjuvant therapy, how do you think this will affect the importance of lymphadenectomy or sampling?

Dr Bentrem: Dr Bilchik noted that up to 80% may undergo an inadequate operation. I would say up to 80% do not get optimal lymph node counts. I think it is important to take a step back and look at the view from 30 000 ft to see how care is delivered. You can make recommendations or create guidelines, but it is important to see how they are actually carried through. When the adjuvant therapy trial for gastric cancer came out, it was quite a noteworthy point that more than half of the patients only got a D0 lymphadenectomy, so studies to see how we are doing with established recommendations are important.

With regard to the importance of center type and volume, I think it is important to consider both of those factors. We were unable to include both simultaneously in the multivariate model due to the collinearity or the overlap, but I think both are important.

With regard to whether lymph node sampling is improving, we are getting a little better. Dr Hundahl's report in 2000 had a median lymph node count of 8 when looking at patients with N0 and N1 stages, so we are improving, but it is happening very slowly.

Multiple prior studies for gastric and pancreatic cancer have examined the effect of nodal evaluation on survival. I did not think we needed to extend those any further.

There are data from randomized trials regarding the role of extended lymphadenectomy, so we did not need to revisit that topic either.

Regarding neoadjuvant therapy, you brought up an important point regarding the lessons from rectal cancer. Neoadjuvant radiation can lower lymph node counts. However, I think it is the minority of patients with pancreatic or gastric cancer who will receive neoadjuvant radiation therapy. When we looked for pancreatic cancer, it was less than 5% who received preoperative radiotherapy in the United States.

With regard to the quality measures, I think these may be premature for accountability but may be appropriate for surveillance and internal hospital quality improvement. I do not think an adequate lymphadenectomy is the same thing as adequate care. Adequate staging is important; it has treatment and prognostic implications, but in terms of what is adequate care, we are a bit premature in using lymph node counts at the level of an accountability measure.

Financial Disclosure: None reported.

Figures

Place holder to copy figure label and caption
Figure 1.

Trends in lymph node evaluation for gastric and pancreatic cancer, 1995 to 2004. P < .001 by linear χ2 test.

Graphic Jump Location
Place holder to copy figure label and caption
Figure 2.

Numbers of lymph nodes examined for gastric cancer (A) (median, 7 nodes; 23.2% had ≥ 15 nodes examined) and pancreatic cancer (B) (median, 7 nodes; 16.4% had ≥ 15 nodes examined), 2003 to 2004.

Graphic Jump Location

Tables

Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 1. Characteristics of Patients Undergoing Gastric or Pancreatic Cancer Resections, 2003 to 2004
Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 2. Nodal Evaluation for Gastric or Pancreatic Cancer, 2003 to 2004
Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 3. Logistic Regression Model Predicting Examination of at Least 15 Lymph Nodes for Gastric or Pancreatic Cancer, 2003 to 2004a

References

Jemal  ASiegel  RWard  EMurray  TXu  JThun  MJ Cancer statistics, 2007. CA Cancer J Clin 2007;57 (1) 43- 66
PubMed Link to Article
Peeters  KCKattan  MWHartgrink  HH  et al.  Validation of a nomogram for predicting disease-specific survival after an R0 resection for gastric carcinoma. Cancer 2005;103 (4) 702- 707
PubMed Link to Article
Siewert  JRBöttcher  KStein  HJRoder  JD Relevant prognostic factors in gastric cancer: ten-year results of the German Gastric Cancer Study. Ann Surg 1998;228 (4) 449- 461
PubMed Link to Article
Kodera  YYamamura  YShimizu  Y  et al.  The number of metastatic lymph nodes: a promising prognostic determinant for gastric carcinoma in the latest edition of the TNM classification. J Am Coll Surg 1998;187 (6) 597- 603
PubMed Link to Article
Kim  JPLee  JHKim  SJYu  HJYang  HK Clinicopathologic characteristics and prognostic factors in 10 783 patients with gastric cancer. Gastric Cancer 1998;1 (2) 125- 133
PubMed Link to Article
Geer  RJBrennan  MF Prognostic indicators for survival after resection of pancreatic adenocarcinoma. Am J Surg 1993;165 (1) 68- 73
PubMed Link to Article
Sarela  AITurnbull  ADCoit  DGKlimstra  DBrennan  MFKarpeh  M Accurate lymph node staging is of greater prognostic importance than subclassification of the T2 category for gastric adenocarcinoma. Ann Surg Oncol 2003;10 (7) 783- 791
PubMed Link to Article
Schmidt  CMPowell  ESYiannoutsos  CT  et al.  Pancreaticoduodenectomy: a 20-year experience in 516 patients. Arch Surg 2004;139 (7) 718- 727
PubMed Link to Article
Yeo  CJCameron  JLSohn  TA  et al.  Pancreaticoduodenectomy with or without extended retroperitoneal lymphadenectomy for periampullary adenocarcinoma: comparison of morbidity and mortality and short-term outcome. Ann Surg 1999;229 (5) 613- 624
PubMed Link to Article
Brennan  MFKattan  MWKlimstra  DConlon  K Prognostic nomogram for patients undergoing resection for adenocarcinoma of the pancreas. Ann Surg 2004;240 (2) 293- 298
PubMed Link to Article
Bouvier  AMHaas  OPiard  FRoignot  PBonithon-Kopp  CFaivre  J How many nodes must be examined to accurately stage gastric carcinomas? results from a population based study. Cancer 2002;94 (11) 2862- 2866
PubMed Link to Article
Karpeh  MSLeon  LKlimstra  DBrennan  MF Lymph node staging in gastric cancer: is location more important than number? an analysis of 1,038 patients. Ann Surg 2000;232 (3) 362- 371
PubMed Link to Article
Lee  HKYang  HKKim  WHLee  KUChoe  KJKim  JP Influence of the number of lymph nodes examined on staging of gastric cancer. Br J Surg 2001;88 (10) 1408- 1412
PubMed Link to Article
Pawlik  TMGleisner  ALCameron  JL  et al.  Prognostic relevance of lymph node ratio following pancreaticoduodenectomy for pancreatic cancer. Surgery 2007;141 (5) 610- 618
PubMed Link to Article
Schwarz  RESmith  DD Extent of lymph node retrieval and pancreatic cancer survival: information from a large US population database. Ann Surg Oncol 2006;13 (9) 1189- 1200
PubMed Link to Article
Smith  DDSchwarz  RRSchwarz  RE Impact of total lymph node count on staging and survival after gastrectomy for gastric cancer: data from a large US-population database. J Clin Oncol 2005;23 (28) 7114- 7124
PubMed Link to Article
Tomlinson  JSJain  SBentrem  DJ  et al.  Accuracy of staging node-negative pancreas cancer: a potential quality measure. Arch Surg 2007;142 (8) 767- 774
PubMed Link to Article
Feinstein  ARSosin  DMWells  CK The Will Rogers phenomenon: stage migration and new diagnostic techniques as a source of misleading statistics for survival in cancer. N Engl J Med 1985;312 (25) 1604- 1608
PubMed Link to Article
Kim  JPKim  YWYang  HKNoh  DY Significant prognostic factors by multivariate analysis of 3926 gastric cancer patients. World J Surg 1994;18 (6) 872- 878
PubMed Link to Article
American Joint Committee on Cancer Staging, American Joint Committee on Cancer Staging Manual. 6th ed. Chicago, IL Springer-Verlag NY Inc2002;
Birkmeyer  JDSun  YWong  SLStukel  TA Hospital volume and late survival after cancer surgery. Ann Surg 2007;245 (5) 777- 783
PubMed Link to Article
Birkmeyer  NJGoodney  PPStukel  TAHillner  BEBirkmeyer  JD Do cancer centers designated by the National Cancer Institute have better surgical outcomes? Cancer 2005;103 (3) 435- 441
PubMed Link to Article
Fong  YGonen  MRubin  DRadzyner  MBrennan  MF Long-term survival is superior after resection for cancer in high-volume centers. Ann Surg 2005;242 (4) 540- 547
PubMed
Berger  ACWatson  JCRoss  EAHoffman  JP The metastatic/examined lymph node ratio is an important prognostic factor after pancreaticoduodenectomy for pancreatic adenocarcinoma. Am Surg 2004;70 (3) 235- 240
PubMed
Winchester  DPStewart  AKBura  CJones  RS The National Cancer Data Base: a clinical surveillance and quality improvement tool. J Surg Oncol 2004;85 (1) 1- 3
PubMed Link to Article
Bilimoria  KYStewart  AKWinchester  DPKo  CY The National Cancer Data Base: a powerful initiative to improve cancer care in the United States. Ann Surg Oncol 2008;15 (3) 683- 690
PubMed Link to Article
 International Classification of Diseases for Oncology. 3rd ed. Geneva, Switzerland World Health Organization2000;
 Facility Oncology Registry Data Standards.  Chicago, IL Commission on Cancer2004;
Baxter  NNTuttle  TM Inadequacy of lymph node staging in gastric cancer patients: a population-based study. Ann Surg Oncol 2005;12 (12) 981- 987
PubMed Link to Article
US Census Bureau Web site, Census 2000. http://www.census.gov/main/www/cen2000.html. Accessed January 21, 2007
Panageas  KSSchrag  DRiedel  EBach  PBBegg  CB The effect of clustering of outcomes on the association of procedure volume and surgical outcomes. Ann Intern Med 2003;139 (8) 658- 665
PubMed Link to Article
Hosmer  JLemeshow  S Applied Logistic Regression.  New York, NY John Wiley & Sons1999;
Brennan  MF Lymph-node dissection for gastric cancer. N Engl J Med 1999;340 (12) 956- 958
PubMed Link to Article
Dicken  BJBigam  DLCass  CMackey  JRJoy  AAHamilton  SM Gastric adenocarcinoma: review and considerations for future directions. Ann Surg 2005;241 (1) 27- 39
PubMed
Stojadinovic  ABrooks  AHoos  AJaques  DPConlon  KCBrennan  MF An evidence-based approach to the surgical management of resectable pancreatic adenocarcinoma. J Am Coll Surg 2003;196 (6) 954- 964
PubMed Link to Article
Michalski  CWKleeff  JWente  MNDiener  MKBüchler  MWFriess  H Systematic review and meta-analysis of standard and extended lymphadenectomy in pancreaticoduodenectomy for pancreatic cancer. Br J Surg 2007;94 (3) 265- 273
PubMed Link to Article
Hundahl  SAPhillips  JLMenck  HR The National Cancer Data Base Report on poor survival of U.S. gastric carcinoma patients treated with gastrectomy: fifth edition American Joint Committee on Cancer staging, proximal disease, and the “different disease” hypothesis. Cancer 2000;88 (4) 921- 932
PubMed Link to Article
Bilimoria  KYBentrem  DJKo  CY  et al.  Multimodality therapy for pancreatic cancer in the U.S.: utilization, outcomes, and the effect of hospital volume. Cancer 2007;110 (6) 1227- 1234
PubMed Link to Article
Bilimoria  KYBentrem  DJKo  CYStewart  AKWinchester  DPTalamonti  MS National failure to operate on early stage pancreatic cancer. Ann Surg 2007;246 (2) 173- 180
PubMed Link to Article
Scott  KWGrace  RH Detection of lymph node metastases in colorectal carcinoma before and after fat clearance. Br J Surg 1989;76 (11) 1165- 1167
PubMed Link to Article
Pedrazzoli  SDiCarlo  VDionigi  R  et al. Lymphadenectomy Study Group, Standard versus extended lymphadenectomy associated with pancreatoduodenectomy in the surgical treatment of adenocarcinoma of the head of the pancreas: a multicenter, prospective, randomized study. Ann Surg 1998;228 (4) 508- 517
PubMed Link to Article
Bonenkamp  JJHermans  JSasako  Mvan de Velde  CJDutch Gastric Cancer Group, Extended lymph-node dissection for gastric cancer. N Engl J Med 1999;340 (12) 908- 914
PubMed Link to Article
Perlin  JBKolodner  RMRoswell  RH The Veterans Health Administration: quality, value, accountability, and information as transforming strategies for patient-centered care. Healthc Pap 2005;5 (4) 10- 24
PubMed Link to Article
National Quality Forum Web site, Quality of cancer care performance measures: phase II. http://www.qualityforum.org/projects/ongoing/cancer/index.asp. Accessed April 9, 2008
Baxter  NNVirnig  DJRothenberger  DAMorris  AMJessurun  JVirnig  BA Lymph node evaluation in colorectal cancer patients: a population-based study. J Natl Cancer Inst 2005;97 (3) 219- 225
PubMed Link to Article
Gordon  TABowman  HMTielsch  JMBass  EBBurleyson  GPCameron  JL Statewide regionalization of pancreaticoduodenectomy and its effect on in-hospital mortality. Ann Surg 1998;228 (1) 71- 78
PubMed Link to Article
Bilimoria  KYStewart  AKPalis  BEBentrem  DJTalamonti  MSKo  CY Adequacy and importance of nodal examination for colon cancer in the elderly. J Am Coll Surg 2008;206 (2) 247- 254
PubMed Link to Article

Correspondence

CME
Meets CME requirements for:
Browse CME for all U.S. States
Accreditation Information
The American Medical Association is accredited by the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education to provide continuing medical education for physicians. The AMA designates this journal-based CME activity for a maximum of 1 AMA PRA Category 1 CreditTM per course. Physicians should claim only the credit commensurate with the extent of their participation in the activity. Physicians who complete the CME course and score at least 80% correct on the quiz are eligible for AMA PRA Category 1 CreditTM.
Note: You must get at least of the answers correct to pass this quiz.
You have not filled in all the answers to complete this quiz
The following questions were not answered:
Sorry, you have unsuccessfully completed this CME quiz with a score of
The following questions were not answered correctly:
Commitment to Change (optional):
Indicate what change(s) you will implement in your practice, if any, based on this CME course.
Your quiz results:
The filled radio buttons indicate your responses. The preferred responses are highlighted
For CME Course: A Proposed Model for Initial Assessment and Management of Acute Heart Failure Syndromes
Indicate what changes(s) you will implement in your practice, if any, based on this CME course.
Submit a Comment

Multimedia

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Web of Science® Times Cited: 32

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging & repositioning the boxes below.

Articles Related By Topic
Related Collections
PubMed Articles