Development and Validation of Prediction Models and Risk Calculators for Posthepatectomy Liver Failure and Postoperative Complications Using a Diverse International Cohort of Major Hepatectomies.

OBJECTIVE: The study aim was to develop and validate models to predict clinically significant posthepatectomy liver failure (PHLF) and serious complications [a Comprehensive Complication Index (CCI)>40] using preoperative and intraoperative variables. BACKGROUND: PHLF is a serious complication after major hepatectomy but does not comprehensively capture a patient's postoperative course. Adding the CCI as an additional metric can account for complications unrelated to liver function. METHODS: The cohort included adult patients who underwent major hepatectomies at 12 international centers (2010-2020). After splitting the data into training and validation sets (70:30), models for PHLF and a CCI>40 were fit using logistic regression with a lasso penalty on the training cohort. The models were then evaluated on the validation data set. RESULTS: Among 2192 patients, 185 (8.4%) had clinically significant PHLF and 160 (7.3%) had a CCI>40. The PHLF model had an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.80, calibration slope of 0.95, and calibration-in-the-large of -0.09, while the CCI model had an AUC of 0.76, calibration slope of 0.88, and calibration-in-the-large of 0.02. When the models were provided only preoperative variables to predict PHLF and a CCI>40, this resulted in similar AUCs of 0.78 and 0.71, respectively. Both models were used to build 2 risk calculators with the option to include or exclude intraoperative variables ( PHLF Risk Calculator; CCI>40 Risk Calculator ). CONCLUSIONS: Using an international cohort of major hepatectomy patients, we used preoperative and intraoperative variables to develop and internally validate multivariable models to predict clinically significant PHLF and a CCI>40 with good discrimination and calibration.

National Practice Patterns in Malignant Peritoneal Mesothelioma: Updates in Management and Survival.

BACKGROUND: Malignant peritoneal mesothelioma (MPM) is a rare malignancy with a historically poor prognosis. Cytoreductive surgery (CRS) with hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) has emerged as an effective therapy for patients with peritoneal malignancies. A contemporary analysis of trends in management of and survival from MPM is warranted. METHODS: Patients with MPM were identified from the National Cancer Database (2004-2018). Patients were categorized by treatment (CRS-HIPEC, CRS-chemotherapy, CRS only, chemotherapy only, no treatment), and joinpoint regression was employed to compute the annual percent change (APC) in treatment over time. Multivariable Cox proportional hazards models were used to analyze factors associated with survival. RESULTS: Of 2683 patients with MPM, 19.1% underwent CRS-HIPEC, and 21.1% received no treatment. Joinpoint regression revealed a statistically significant increase in the proportion of patients undergoing CRS-HIPEC over time (APC 3.21, p = 0.01), and a concurrent decrease in the proportion of patients who underwent no treatment (APC - 2.21, p = 0.02). Median overall survival was 19.5 months. Factors independently associated with survival included CRS-HIPEC, CRS, histology, sex, age, race, Charlson Comorbidity Index, insurance, and hospital type. Although there was a strong association between year of diagnosis and survival on univariate analysis (2016-2018 HR 0.67, p < 0.001), this association was attenuated after adjustment for treatment. CONCLUSIONS: CRS-HIPEC is increasingly employed as a treatment for MPM. In parallel, there has been a decrease in patients receiving no treatment with an increase in overall survival. These findings suggest that patients with MPM may be receiving more appropriate therapy; however, a substantial proportion of patients may remain undertreated.

Benefits of EUS-guided gastroenterostomy over surgical gastrojejunostomy in the palliation of malignant gastric outlet obstruction: a large multicenter experience.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Palliation of malignant gastric outlet obstruction (mGOO) allows resumption of peroral intake. Although surgical gastrojejunostomy (SGJ) provides durable relief, it may be associated with a higher morbidity, interfere with chemotherapy, and require an optimum nutritional status. EUS-guided gastroenterostomy (EUS-GE) has emerged as a minimally invasive alternative. We aimed to conduct the largest comparative series to date between EUS-GE and SGJ for mGOO. METHODS: This multicenter retrospective study included consecutive patients undergoing SGJ or EUS-GE at 6 centers. Primary outcomes included time to resumption of oral intake, length of stay (LOS), and mortality. Secondary outcomes included technical and clinical success, reintervention rates, adverse events (AEs), and resumption of chemotherapy. RESULTS: A total of 310 patients were included (EUS-GE, n = 187; SGJ, n = 123). EUS-GE exhibited significantly lower time to resumption of oral intake (1.40 vs 4.06 days, P < .001), at lower albumin levels (2.95 vs 3.33 g/dL, P < .001), and a shorter LOS (5.31 vs 8.54 days, P < .001) compared with SGJ; there was no difference in mortality (48.1% vs 50.4%, P = .78). Technical (97.9% and 100%) and clinical (94.1% vs 94.3%) success was similar in the EUS-GE and SGJ groups, respectively. EUS-GE had lower rates of AEs (13.4% vs 33.3%, P < .001) but higher reintervention rates (15.5% vs 1.63%, P < .001). EUS-GE patients exhibited significantly lower interval time to resumption of chemotherapy (16.6 vs 37.8 days, P < .001). Outcomes between the EUS-GE and laparoscopic (n = 46) surgical approach showed that EUS-GE had shorter interval time to initiation/resumption of oral intake (3.49 vs 1.46 days, P < .001), decreased LOS (9 vs 5.31 days, P < .001), and a lower rate of AEs (11.9% vs 17.9%, P = .003). CONCLUSIONS: This is the largest study to date showing that EUS-GE can be performed among nutritionally deficient patients without affecting the technical and clinical success compared with SGJ. EUS-GE is associated with fewer AEs while allowing earlier resumption of diet and chemotherapy.

Using the Comprehensive Complication Index to Rethink the ISGLS Criteria for Post-hepatectomy Liver Failure in an International Cohort of Major Hepatectomies.

OBJECTIVE: To compare different criteria for post-hepatectomy liver failure (PHLF) and evaluate the association between International Study Group of Liver Surgery (ISGLS) PHLF and the Comprehensive Complication Index (CCI)" and 90-day mortality. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: PHLF is a serious complication following hepatic resection. Multiple criteria have been developed to characterize PHLF. METHODS: Adults who underwent major hepatectomies at twelve international centers (2010-2020) were included. We identified patients who met criteria for PHLF based on three definitions: 1) ISGLS, 2) Balzan (INR > 1.7 and bilirubin > 2.92mg/dL) or 3) Mullen (peak bilirubin >7mg/dL). We compared the 90-day mortality and major morbidity predicted by each definition. We then used logistic regression to determine the odds of CCI>40 and 90-day mortality associated with ISGLS grades. RESULTS: Among 1646 included patients, 19 (1.1%) met Balzan, 68 (4.1%) met Mullen, and 444 (27.0%) met ISGLS criteria for PHLF. Of the three definitions, the ISGLS criteria best predicted 90-day mortality (AUC = 0.72; sensitivity 69.4%). Patients with ISGLS grades B&C were at increased odds of CCI > 40 (grade B OR 4.0; 95% CI: 2.2-7.2; grade C OR 137.0; 95% CI: 59.2-317.4). Patients with ISGLS grade C were at increased odds of 90-day mortality (OR 113.6; 95% CI: 55.6-232.1). Grade A was not associated with CCI> 40 or 90-day mortality. CONCLUSIONS: In this diverse international cohort of major hepatectomies, ISGLS grade A was not associated with 90-day mortality or high CCI, calling into question the current classification of patients in this group as having clinically significant PHLF.

Neoadjuvant Therapy Versus Upfront Resection for Nonpancreatic Periampullary Adenocarcinoma.

BACKGROUND: In contrast to pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC), neoadjuvant therapy (NAT) for periampullary adenocarcinomas is not well studied, with data limited to single-institution retrospective reviews with small cohorts. We sought to compare outcomes of NAT versus upfront resection (UR) for non-PDAC periampullary adenocarcinomas. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Using the National Cancer Database (NCDB), we identified patients who underwent surgery for extrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma, ampullary adenocarcinoma, or duodenal adenocarcinoma from 2006 to 2016. We compared outcomes between NAT versus UR groups for each tumor subtype with 1:3 propensity score matching. Cox regression was used to identify predictors of survival. RESULTS: Among 7656 patients who underwent resection for non-PDAC periampullary adenocarcinoma, the proportion of patients who received NAT increased from 6 to 11% for cholangiocarcinoma (p < 0.01), 1 to 4% for ampullary adenocarcinoma (p = 0.01), and 5 to 8% for duodenal adenocarcinoma (p = 0.08). Length of stay, readmission, and 30-day mortality were comparable between NAT and UR. All tumor subtypes were downstaged following NAT (p < 0.01). The R0 resection rate was significantly higher in patients with extrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma who received NAT, and these patients had improved median overall survival (38 vs 26 months, p < 0.001). After adjustment for clinicopathologic factors and adjuvant chemotherapy, use of NAT was associated with improved survival in patients with cholangiocarcinoma [hazard ratio (HR) 0.69, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.54-0.89, p = 0.004] but not duodenal or ampullary adenocarcinoma. The survival advantage for cholangiocarcinoma persisted after propensity matching. CONCLUSION: This national cohort analysis suggests, for the first time, that neoadjuvant therapy is associated with improved survival in patients with extrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma.

Assessing the role of robotic proctectomy in obese patients: a contemporary NSQIP analysis.

Robotic proctectomy has become increasingly popular for both benign and malignant indications. The purpose of this study was to determine if the robotic approach has a distinct advantage over laparoscopy in obese patients, which has been suggested by previous subgroup analyses. We performed a retrospective review of 2016-2018 National Surgery Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) data to compare outcomes between patients who underwent robotic versus laparoscopic proctectomy, stratified by Body Mass Index (BMI) subgroups. We also compared outcomes of converted minimally invasive proctectomy to planned open operations. Four thousand four hundred eighteen (69.3%) patients underwent laparoscopic proctectomy, and 1956 (30.7%) patients underwent robotic proctectomy. Robotic proctectomy was associated with a significantly lower conversion rate compared to laparoscopic proctectomy (5.1% vs 12.3%; p = 0.002), and this relationship was maintained on an adjusted model. Obese (BMI > 30) patients were more likely to require conversion in both laparoscopic and robotic groups with the greatest difference in the conversion rate in the obese subgroup. Patients who underwent conversion had higher composite morbidity compared to patients who underwent planned open operations (50.8% vs 41.3%; p < 0.001). And among patients with rectal cancer, robotic proctectomy was associated with a greater incidence of positive radial tumor margins compared to laparoscopic proctectomy (8.0% vs 6.4%; p = 0.039), driven primarily by the obese subgroup. Our study demonstrates that robotic proctectomy is associated with a 7% lower conversion rate compared to laparoscopy and that obese patients are more likely to require conversion than non-obese patients. Among obese patients with rectal cancer, we identified an increased risk of positive radial margins with robotic compared to laparoscopic proctectomy.

Contemporary Trends in Malignant Peritoneal Mesothelioma: Incidence and Survival in the United States.

Background: Malignant peritoneal mesothelioma (MPM) is a rare disease with a historically poor prognosis. Given the emergence of effective therapies, a contemporary analysis of MPM incidence and survival is warranted. Methods: The SEER-18 registry dataset was analyzed (2000−2018). Age-adjusted annual incidence was stratified by sex and histology. Joinpoint regression was used to estimate annual percent change (APC) in incidence. Multivariable cox proportional hazards models were used to investigate survival trends. Results: Of 1689 MPM cases, most were male (55.4%), >50 years (80.0%), and white (75.2%). Age-adjusted incidence of MPM remained stable over time, with an average annual incidence of 1.02 cases/million. Epithelioid histology increased by 240% (APC 2.6; 95% CI: 0.7, 4.5), while incidence of undefined histology decreased significantly (APC −2.1; 95% CI: −3.1, −1.1). Cases treated with cancer-directed surgery increased from 27% to 43%. Overall median age-standardized survival was 11.6 months. Median age-standardized survival was 16.6 months for epithelioid histology but 2.0 months for sarcomatoid histology. Diagnosis in recent years (2015−2018 HR 0.51; 95% CI: 0.38, 0.67) and receipt of cancer-directed surgery (HR 0.84; 95% CI: 0.72, 0.98) were associated with improved survival. Conclusions: Although the overall incidence of MPM remained stable, recognition of epithelioid histology increased. Concurrent with an increase in cancer-directed surgery, MPM survival has improved.

Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy for Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma Lessens the Deleterious Effect of Omission of Adjuvant Chemotherapy.

BACKGROUND: Despite controversy regarding the role of neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) in pancreatic adenocarcinoma, nearly half of resected patients do not receive chemotherapy postoperatively. This study aimed to examine whether use of NAC compensates for omission of adjuvant chemotherapy (AC) for resected pancreatic adenocarcinoma. METHODS: Adults with resected stages 1 to 3 pancreatic adenocarcinoma were enrolled from the National Cancer Database NCDB (2006-2016). Overall survival (OS) analyses were used to examine the impact of NAC on those who did not receive AC. RESULTS: The study analyzed a national cohort of 56,286 patients: 30% without chemotherapy, 11% with NAC, 54% with AC, and 5% with NAC plus AC. Use of NAC increased by more than 400% from 2006 to 2016, whereas the rates for omission of chemotherapy remained unchanged. The OS rates were similar between the patients who received NAC and those who received AC (hazard ratio, 0.97; p = 0.21). Among the patients who did not receive AC, NAC was associated with improved OS (26.7 vs. 18.4 months; p < 0.0001). The patients who did not receive AC but underwent NAC had a median OS comparable with the OS of those who received AC alone (26.9 vs. 24.7 months). In the adjusted analysis, the use of NAC for those without AC was significantly associated with improved OS (estimate, - 0.24; p < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Although data are limited regarding the survival benefit derived from neoadjuvant versus adjuvant chemotherapy in pancreatic adenocarcinoma, nearly half of patients do not receive adjuvant chemotherapy. This study demonstrates that the use of NAC lessens the survival disadvantage caused by omission of AC. Despite controversy, NAC may be considered for pancreatic adenocarcinoma patients given the high likelihood that adjuvant chemotherapy will be omitted.

Safety and oncologic efficacy of robotic compared to open pancreaticoduodenectomy after neoadjuvant chemotherapy for pancreatic cancer.

BACKGROUND: Emerging data from multi-institutional and national databases suggest that robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy is safe and feasible for pancreatic adenocarcinoma. Nevertheless, there are limited reports evaluating its safety and oncologic efficacy following neoadjuvant chemotherapy. METHOD: This is a retrospective study from the 2010-2016 National Cancer Database comparing the postoperative, pathological and long-term oncologic outcomes between robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy (RPD) and open pancreaticoduodenectomy (OPD) for pancreatic adenocarcinoma following neoadjuvant chemotherapy. RESULTS: We identified 155 (5%) RPD and 3329 (95%) OPD following neoadjuvant chemotherapy. The use of the robot increased from 3 cases in 2010 to 50 cases in 2016. RPD patients were more likely to receive adjuvant chemotherapy and to be treated at academic centers. After adjustment, RPD was associated with a higher proportion of adequate lymphadenectomy, receipt of adjuvant chemotherapy, decreased rate of prolonged length of stay, and similar 90-day mortality. There was no difference in median overall survival between RPD and OPD (25.6 months vs. 27.5 months, Log Rank p = 0.879). The 1-, 3- and 5-year overall survival rates for RPD were 83%, 36% and 22% and for OPD were 86%, 38% and 22%. After adjustment, the use of robotic surgery was associated with similar overall survival compared to the open approach (HR 1.011, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.776-1.316). CONCLUSIONS: Following neoadjuvant chemotherapy, RPD is associated with similar short- and long-term mortality with the advantage of shorter length of stay, higher proportion of adequate lymphadenectomy and receipt of adjuvant chemotherapy.

Long-term survival following minimally invasive extended cholecystectomy for gallbladder cancer: A 7-year experience from the National Cancer Database.

BACKGROUND: Open extended cholecystectomy (O-EC) has long been the recommended treatment for resectable gallbladder cancer (GBC), while the minimally-invasive approach for EC (MIS-EC) remains controversial. Our aim was to analyze overall survival of GBC patients treated with MIS-EC vs O-EC at the national level. METHODS: A retrospective review of the National Cancer Database of patients with resectable GBC (2010-2016) and treated with either MIS-EC or O-EC was performed. Overall survival (OS) was compared by the surgical approach. RESULTS: A total of 680 patients were identified, of whom 235 (34.6%) underwent MIS-EC. There were no differences in the rates of positive margins between MIS-EC and O-EC (14% vs 19%, respectively; P = .278), and in the mean lymph node yield (6.54 vs 6.66, respectively; P = .914). The median survival following MIS-EC was significantly higher than that of O-EC (39 vs 26 months; P = .048). After stratification by pathological stage and after adjustment, there was no significant difference in OS between the groups (HR = 0.9, 95% CI, 0.6-1.5). CONCLUSION: In this large national cohort, MIS-EC oncologic outcomes were noninferior to the O-EC. Proficiency with MIS techniques, proper patient selection, and referral to specialized centers may allow a greater benefit from this treatment modality.

Hospital Volume Threshold for the Treatment of Retroperitoneal Sarcoma.

BACKGROUND: Retroperitoneal sarcomas (RPS) are rare, histologically heterogeneous, and anatomically complex tumors. National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines recommend evaluation and management by multidisciplinary teams with experience in sarcoma. Our aim was to determine an appropriate hospital volume threshold for the treatment of RPS. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients undergoing resection of RPS were identified from the National Cancer Data Base (1998-2012). Multivariable modeling with restricted cubic splines was employed to examine the association between hospital volume and survival and identify possible hospital volume threshold. RESULTS: The study included 5,340 patients who underwent surgery at 909 different hospitals. Median annual volume was two cases per year. After adjustment, hospital volume was associated with improved survival (p=0.01), without cutoff. The cohort was then grouped into: Low-volume (≤5 cases/year), intermediate-volume (6-10 cases/year), and high-volume (>10 cases/year). The majority of patients were treated in low-volume hospitals (86%), compared to 9% in intermediate- and 5% in high-volume centers; 44% of patients were treated in hospitals that performed one case per year. Compared to low-volume, high-volume hospitals more often had patients with high-grade and larger tumors. Adjusted 90-day mortality was significantly lower in high- vs. low-volume hospitals (odds ratio(OR)=0.25, p=0.02). With adjustment, treatment in high- vs. low-volume hospitals was associated with lower odds of margin positivity (OR=0.58, p=0.001), and improved overall survival (hazard ratio(HR)=0.61, p=0.002). CONCLUSION: Treatment of RPS in high-volume centers is associated with significant reduction in short-term mortality and improved long-term survival. Hospital volume may be a surrogate for the infrastructure and support necessary for the optimal management of these complex malignancies.

The appropriateness of 30-day mortality as a quality metric in colorectal cancer surgery.

BACKGROUND: Our study compares 30-day vs. 90-day mortality following colorectal cancer surgery (CRS), and examines hospital performance ranking based on this assessment. METHODS: Mortality rates were compared between 30 vs. 90 days following CRS for patients with stage I-III colorectal cancers from the National Cancer Database (2004-2012). Risk-adjusted hierarchical regression models evaluated hospital performance based on mortality. Hospitals were ranked into top (10%), middle (80%), and lowest (10%) performance groups. RESULTS: Among 185,464 patients, 90-day mortality was nearly double the 30-day mortality (4.4% vs. 2.5%). Following risk adjustment 176 hospitals changed performance ranking: 39% in the top 30-day mortality group changed ranking to the middle group; 37% of hospitals in the lowest 30-day group changed ranking to the middle 90-day group. CONCLUSIONS: Evaluation of hospital performance based on 30-day mortality is associated with misclassification for 15% of hospitals. Ninety-day mortality may be a better quality metric in oncologic CRS.