English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Purpose:   Survival is considered an important indicator of the quality of cancer care, but the validity of different methodologies to measure comparative survival rates is less well understood. We explored whether the National Cancer Data Base (NCDB) could serve as a source of unadjusted and risk-adjusted cancer survival data and whether these data could be used as quality indicators for individual hospitals or in the aggregate by hospital type.Methods:   The NCDB, an aggregate of &gt; 1,500 hospital cancer registries, was queried to analyze unadjusted and risk-adjusted hazards of death for patients with stage III breast cancer (n = 116,787) and stage IIIB or IV non–small-cell lung cancer (n = 252,392). Data were analyzed at the individual hospital level and by hospital type.Results:   At the hospital level, after risk adjustment, few hospitals had comparative risk-adjusted survival rates that were statistically better or worse. By hospital type, National Cancer Institute–designated comprehensive cancer centers had risk-adjusted survival ratios that were statistically significantly better than those of academic cancer centers and community hospitals.Conclusion:   Using the NCDB as the data source, survival rates for patients with stage III breast cancer and stage IIIB or IV non–small-cell lung cancer were statistically better at National Cancer Institute–designated comprehensive cancer centers when compared with other hospital types. Compared with academic hospitals, risk-adjusted survival was lower in community hospitals. At the individual hospital level, after risk adjustment, few hospitals were shown to have statistically better or worse survival, suggesting that, using NCDB data, survival may not be a good metric to determine relative quality of cancer care at this level.

Survival As a Quality Metric of Cancer Care: Use of the National Cancer Data Base to Assess Hospital Performance