Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current issue
    • Past issues
    • Early releases
    • Collections
    • Sections
    • Blog
    • Infographics & illustrations
    • Podcasts
    • COVID-19 articles
    • Obituary notices
  • Authors & Reviewers
    • Overview for authors
    • Submission guidelines
    • Submit a manuscript
    • Forms
    • Editorial process
    • Editorial policies
    • Peer review process
    • Publication fees
    • Reprint requests
    • Open access
    • Patient engagement
  • Physicians & Subscribers
    • Benefits for Canadian physicians
    • CPD Credits for CMA Members
    • Subscribe to CMAJ Print
    • Subscription prices
    • Obituary notices
  • Alerts
    • Email alerts
    • RSS
  • JAMC
    • À propos
    • Numéro en cours
    • Archives
    • Sections
    • Abonnement
    • Alertes
    • Trousse média 2023
    • Avis de décès
  • CMAJ JOURNALS
    • CMAJ Open
    • CJS
    • JAMC
    • JPN

User menu

Search

  • Advanced search
CMAJ
  • CMAJ JOURNALS
    • CMAJ Open
    • CJS
    • JAMC
    • JPN
CMAJ

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current issue
    • Past issues
    • Early releases
    • Collections
    • Sections
    • Blog
    • Infographics & illustrations
    • Podcasts
    • COVID-19 articles
    • Obituary notices
  • Authors & Reviewers
    • Overview for authors
    • Submission guidelines
    • Submit a manuscript
    • Forms
    • Editorial process
    • Editorial policies
    • Peer review process
    • Publication fees
    • Reprint requests
    • Open access
    • Patient engagement
  • Physicians & Subscribers
    • Benefits for Canadian physicians
    • CPD Credits for CMA Members
    • Subscribe to CMAJ Print
    • Subscription prices
    • Obituary notices
  • Alerts
    • Email alerts
    • RSS
  • JAMC
    • À propos
    • Numéro en cours
    • Archives
    • Sections
    • Abonnement
    • Alertes
    • Trousse média 2023
    • Avis de décès
  • Visit CMAJ on Facebook
  • Follow CMAJ on Twitter
  • Follow CMAJ on Pinterest
  • Follow CMAJ on Youtube
  • Follow CMAJ on Instagram
Commentary

Specialization and cancer: words with too many meanings should be handled with care

Roberto Grilli
CMAJ January 23, 2001 164 (2) 210-211;
Roberto Grilli
Dr. Grilli is Senior Executive with the Regional Health Care Agency of Emilia-Romagna, Bologna, Italy.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Responses
  • Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

In this issue (page 183) Ruhee Chaudhry and colleagues1 describe a study exploring the impact of specialization on care for cancer patients. In this study, specialization was defined in terms of a hospital's academic status. Women with tumours less than or equal to 2 cm in diameter who were treated in teaching hospitals had a 53% reduction in rates of death from breast cancer compared with those for women who were treated at nonteaching hospitals (risk ratio 0.47, 95% confidence interval 0.23–0.96). However, what is important about this study is not just the estimate of the effect, rather, it is the fact that this is just the latest of a number of papers exploring the impact of specialization on care for cancer patients in general, and for breast cancer patients in particular. What is worth noting is that, overall, the results of these studies are consistent, concluding that being cared for by specialists (or at specialized centres) is associated with better survival.2

Therefore, it looks as if we are in the fortunate position that the available evidence is coherent with and supportive of our a priori assumptions (assuming that we all believe that being “specialized” implies being “better,” whatever that may mean). So, it is worth asking ourselves whether this is the time to draw some strong, conclusive recommendations from the large body of literature concerning specialization in order to inform health policy.

One of the problems we have to face is that studies like the one by Chaudhry and coworkers1 are looked at with some degree of suspicion because of their observational design. However, randomized clinical trials are hardly applicable to this type of research question, both for reasons of feasibility and acceptability to patients or professionals and, therefore, we have to rely on observational studies.3 The extent to which the comparison between specialists and nonspecialists is adjusted for patient characteristics is probably the key methodological issue in this type of study,4 and in this respect Chaudhry and colleagues did a good job, producing a high-quality nonexperimental study.

But methodologists are not the only ones to look at these findings with scepticism, and problems of study design are not the main reason for being cautious about interpreting these results. Policy-makers also tend to be far from ready to accept them easily in light of their major implications. If specialized care is associated with such an important benefit in terms of survival, then we should promote increased regionalization of cancer care and restructure the relationships between tertiary care and other levels of care, with increased referral of patients to institutions or centres where care is likely to be more “high tech” and more expensive.

It is no wonder that people are cautious about applying these findings and want to know more. And this is the key issue. Do we know enough about the concept of specialization to inform heath policy adequately? The answer, I am afraid, is still No. The concept of specialization has been addressed variably enough in the literature (defined by an institution's academic status — “teaching hospitals” as in this study — or by the case volume of centres or specialists, or by specialized centres such as “cancer centres”)2,5,6 to leave us wondering whether specialization refers to better training of individual clinicians, or to better equipment and technology, or to better expertise acquired through seeing a high volume of patients, or to some other factor.

A further issue is whether specialization is equally important for the different aspects of cancer care or whether its relevance changes according to the amount and type of resources or skills required by the management of a specific clinical circumstance. It is worth noting that the only randomized clinical trials that, according to my knowledge, have compared different models of organization of care for cancer patients (a study of breast cancer follow-up performed by staff at specialized clinics in hospitals versus general practitioners) did not show any difference in terms of quality and quantity of life.7 These findings suggest that at least some clinical problems can be equally well handled by nonspecialists, when they are provided with the necessary resources and support.

The word “specialization” has several possible meanings and lends itself to different possible interpretations, each one leading to different, and sometimes alternative, policy options. If specialization has to do with better knowledge, the same results could be achieved through proper education of health professionals operating in community hospitals. This is an area where practice guidelines, if properly implemented, could have a major role.8 If it is a matter of higher case volume leading to improved knowledge and skills, then the problem is the trade-off between the potential benefit gained through increased regionalization and maintaining accessibility of services. But specialization may also mean the presence of specific organizational models, in which relationships among professionals are structured in such a way as to assure integration and coordination of skills and competence.

The need for specialized services for the care of breast cancer patients has sometimes been explicitly expressed by the organization of multidisciplinary teams of health professionals.9 However, the only evidence supporting the view that a multidisciplinary clinical environment has a positive impact comes from a single study of ovarian cancer10 and, overall, in the literature on the impact of specialization any attempt at disentangling the different components of specialization (i.e., resources, skills, organizational models of care) is missing.

These final remarks have at least 2 implications. The first is that it is probably time to move from research that is essentially aimed at quantifying the effects of specialization to more qualitative approaches aimed at understanding more deeply what this concept means in terms of working relationships among health professionals and their skills and expertise.

The second is that, while we are waiting for further research to provide a better understanding of how specialization produces its effect, the limited evidence available has to be interpreted cautiously. Opinions, beliefs and even vested interests are inevitably going to take the place of the evidence that is lacking. It is important that the interpretation of the concept of “specialization” is as balanced as possible and takes into account the characteristics of the systems in which it has to be applied. The process through which this research information is interpreted has, therefore, to be rigorous in appraising the empirical evidence and in relying on the contribution of representatives from all the stakeholders, including patients, who may legitimately have a say in how health services should be better organized. The ongoing projects in the United Kingdom that are aimed at providing guidance on the organization of services for cancer patients11,12,13 are a good example of how research information can be integrated with the views of health professionals and patients, interpreting the concept of specialization in the way that seems most suitable to meet patients' needs and expectations.

Footnotes

  • Competing interests: None declared.

References

  1. 1.↵
    Chaudhry R, Goel V, Sawka C. Breast cancer survival by teaching status of the initial treating hospital. CMAJ 2001;164(2):183-8. Available: www.cma.ca/cmaj/vol-164/issue-2/0183.htm
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  2. 2.↵
    Grilli R, Minozzi S, Tinazzi A, Labianca R, Sheldon TA, Liberati A. Do specialists do it better? The impact of specialization on the processes and outcomes of care for cancer patients. Ann Oncol 1998;9:365-74.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  3. 3.↵
    Black N. Why we need observational studies to evaluate the effectiveness of health care. BMJ 1996;312:1215-8.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  4. 4.↵
    Sowden AJ, Deeks JJ, Sheldon TA. Volume and outcome in coronary artery bypass graft surgery: true association or artefact? BMJ 1995;311:151-5.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  5. 5.↵
    Begg CB, Cramer LD, Hoskins WJ, Brennan MF. Impact of hospital volume on operative mortality for major cancer surgery. JAMA 1998;280:1747-51.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  6. 6.↵
    Gillis CR, Hole DJ. Survival outcome of care by specialist surgeons in breast cancer: a study of 3786 patients in the west of Scotland. BMJ 1996;312:145-8.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  7. 7.↵
    Grunfeld E, Mant D, Yudkin P, Adewuyi-Dalton R, Cole D, Stewart J, et al. Routine follow up of breast cancer in primary care: randomised trial. BMJ 1996;313:665-9.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  8. 8.↵
    Grimshaw J, Shirran E, Thomas R, Mowatt G , Fraser C, Bero L, et al. Getting evidence into practice. NHS Centre for Review & Dissemination. Effective Health Care 1999;1(Feb).
  9. 9.↵
    Provision of breast services in the UK: the advantages of specialist units. Report of a working party of the British Breast Group. Edinburgh (UK): Churchill Livingstone; 1995.
  10. 10.↵
    Junor EJ, Hole DJ, Gillis CR. Management of ovarian cancer: referral to a multidisciplinary team matters. Br J Cancer 1994;70:363-70.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  11. 11.↵
    NHS Executive. Improving outcomes in breast cancer. The manual. London: The Executive; 1996.
  12. 12.↵
    NHS Executive. Improving outcomes in colorectal cancer. The manual. London: The Executive; 1997.
  13. 13.↵
    NHS Executive. Improving outcomes in lung cancer. The manual. London: The Executive; 1998.
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

CMAJ
Vol. 164, Issue 2
23 Jan 2001
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author

Article tools

Respond to this article
Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
To sign up for email alerts or to access your current email alerts, enter your email address below:
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on CMAJ.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Specialization and cancer: words with too many meanings should be handled with care
(Your Name) has sent you a message from CMAJ
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the CMAJ web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
Specialization and cancer: words with too many meanings should be handled with care
Roberto Grilli
CMAJ Jan 2001, 164 (2) 210-211;

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
‍ Request Permissions
Share
Specialization and cancer: words with too many meanings should be handled with care
Roberto Grilli
CMAJ Jan 2001, 164 (2) 210-211;
Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Responses
  • Metrics
  • PDF

Related Articles

  • No related articles found.
  • PubMed
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • Relation Between Hospital Specialization With Primary Percutaneous Coronary Intervention and Clinical Outcomes in ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction: National Registry of Myocardial Infarction-4 Analysis
  • Differences in operative mortality between high- and low-volume hospitals in Ontario for 5 major surgical procedures: estimating the number of lives potentially saved through regionalization
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • Ensuring timely genetic diagnosis in adults
  • The case for improving the detection and treatment of obstructive sleep apnea following stroke
  • Laser devices for vaginal rejuvenation: effectiveness, regulation and marketing
Show more Commentary

Similar Articles

 

View Latest Classified Ads

Content

  • Current issue
  • Past issues
  • Collections
  • Sections
  • Blog
  • Podcasts
  • Alerts
  • RSS
  • Early releases

Information for

  • Advertisers
  • Authors
  • Reviewers
  • CMA Members
  • CPD credits
  • Media
  • Reprint requests
  • Subscribers

About

  • General Information
  • Journal staff
  • Editorial Board
  • Advisory Panels
  • Governance Council
  • Journal Oversight
  • Careers
  • Contact
  • Copyright and Permissions
CMAJ Group

Copyright 2023, CMA Impact Inc. or its licensors. All rights reserved. ISSN 1488-2329 (e) 0820-3946 (p)

All editorial matter in CMAJ represents the opinions of the authors and not necessarily those of the Canadian Medical Association or its subsidiaries.

To receive any of these resources in an accessible format, please contact us at CMAJ Group, 500-1410 Blair Towers Place, Ottawa ON, K1J 9B9; p: 1-888-855-2555; e: cmajgroup@cmaj.ca

CMA Civility, Accessibility, Privacy

 

Powered by HighWire