Skip Navigation

JNCI Journal of the National Cancer Institute 2006 98(3):149; doi:10.1093/jnci/djj057
This Article
Right arrow Full Text Freely available
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF) Freely available
Right arrow Japanese Translation
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Request Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

© Oxford University Press 2006.

IN THIS ISSUE

The first 10% of the full text of this article appears below.

Provider Volume, Specialty, and Patient Outcomes

Provider (i.e., hospital or surgeon) procedure volume for many types of cancer operation is strongly associated with patient outcomes. For many diseases, care rendered by a specialist has been associated with better outcomes. In companion papers, Schrag et al. (p. 163) and Earle et al. (p. 172) used SEER–Medicare data to examine these associations among a population-based cohort of women aged 65 years or older who had surgery for a primary ovarian cancer diagnosed from 1992 through 1999. Schrag et al. found that neither hospital- nor surgeon-specific procedure volume was associated with 60-day mortality . . . [Full Text of this Article]

STAT1 Promoter Methylation and Squamous Cell Cancer

Akt Activity and Interleukin-12 Efficacy in Neuroblastoma

Dynamic Monitoring of Oncolytic Adenovirus In Vivo

Acute Myeloid Leukemia Following Hodgkin Lymphoma


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?