Locally Advanced Adenocarcinoma of the Esophagus: Is Esophagectomy Associated with Improved Overall Survival?

BACKGROUND: Esophagectomy in locally advanced esophageal adenocarcinoma is challenging and carries risk. The value of esophagectomy in locally advanced esophageal adenocarcinoma is not well-defined. STUDY DESIGN: The National Cancer Database was used to identify patients with cT4 esophageal adenocarcinoma from 2004-2020. Multivariable regression was used to identify factors associated with use of esophagectomy. Cox modeling was used to identify factors associated with all-cause mortality. Patients undergoing esophagectomy were 1:1 propensity score-matched to patients treated non-surgically. Kaplan-Meier analysis was used to compare five-year overall survival (OS). RESULTS: 3,703 patients met inclusion criteria. 541 (15%) underwent esophagectomy, 3,162 (85%) did not. Age ≤ 65 (aOR 1.69, [1.33, 2.14]), white race (aOR 2.98, [2.24, 3.96]), treatment in academic centers (aOR 1.64, [1.33, 2.02]), private insurance (aOR 1.88, [1.50, 2.36]), and tumors <6cm (aOR 1.86, [1.44, 2.40]) were associated with use of esophagectomy. Government/lack of insurance (HR 1.23, [1.12, 1.35]), income <$46,000 (HR 1.11, [1.03, 1.20]), treatment in non-academic centers (HR 1.16, [1.07, 1.25]), CCI ≥ 1 (HR 1.22, [1.12, 1.32]), and tumors ≥ 6 cm (HR 1.20, [1.09, 1.32]) were associated with risk of all-cause mortality. Esophagectomy (HR 0.50, [0.44, 0.56]) and systemic therapy (HR 0.40, [0.37, 0.43]) were associated with decreased risk of all-cause mortality. Patients undergoing esophagectomy had higher rates of 5-year OS (27.4% vs 13.2%, p<0.0001) and longer median OS (24.71 vs. 10.09 months, p<0.0001). Among cT4b patients, those who underwent esophagectomy had higher rates of 5-year OS (24.5% vs 12.3%, p<0.0001) and longer median OS (25.53 vs. 11.01 months, p<0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: In cT4 esophageal adenocarcinoma, esophagectomy is associated with improved rates of 5-year OS compared to non-surgical treatment.

Locally advanced pancreatic cancer: Is surgical palliation associated with improved clinical outcome relative to medical palliation?

BACKGROUND: The value of palliative surgery in pancreatic cancer is not well-defined. METHODS: We queried the National Cancer Database for patients undergoing curative-intent resection, palliative surgery or medical palliation for clinical stage cT4N0-2M0 pancreatic cancer. Cohorts were 1:1:1 propensity-score-matched for comorbidities and stage. Kaplan-Meier method was used to compare overall survival for matched cohorts. RESULTS: 9,107 patients met inclusion criteria: 3,567 (39 â€‹%) underwent curative intent surgery, 1608 (18 â€‹%) surgical palliation, 3932 (43 â€‹%) medical palliation. Patients undergoing resection and surgical palliation had significant hospitalizations (11.0 â€‹± â€‹0.4 vs. 10.0 â€‹± â€‹0.3 days; p â€‹= â€‹0.821) and rates of readmission (8.1 â€‹% vs. 2.0 â€‹%; p â€‹< â€‹0.001). Patients undergoing surgical palliation demonstrated marginal increases in survival relative to those undergoing medical palliation (8.54 vs. 7.36 months; p â€‹< â€‹0.0001). CONCLUSION: In patients undergoing care for locally advanced pancreatic cancer, palliative surgery is associated with marginal improvement in survival but significant lengths of hospitalization and risk of readmission.

Esophageal cancer: Does inaccuracy in clinical staging affect our ability to reach optimal outcomes?

BACKGROUND: Pretreatment clinical staging is used to decide the course of treatment in early-stage esophageal cancer. Few studies assess the effect of inaccurate clinical staging on oncologic outcomes. METHODS: We queried the National Cancer Database to identify patients undergoing esophagectomy for clinical stage cT1bN0 esophageal carcinoma between 2010 and 2019. Patients were categorized as being upstaged if, on final pathology, they had histopathologic disease that would have warranted treatment with neoadjuvant therapy. The textbook oncologic outcome was defined as margin-negative resection, 15 lymph nodes examined, a hospital stay of <21 days, no unplanned 30-day readmission or mortality, and stage-appropriate use of neoadjuvant therapy. RESULTS: In total, 916 patients met inclusion criteria; 378 (41.2%) had a pathologic stage that differed from their pretreatment clinical stage. By multivariable regression, factors associated upstaging included: presentation between 2015 and 2019 (odds ratio 1.92 95% confidence interval [1.19, 3.13]), delay to esophagectomy of >30 days (odds ratio 2.38 95% confidence interval [1.13, 5.57]), larger tumor size (>2 cm relative to <2 cm, odds ratio 2.73 95% confidence interval [1.72, 4.39]), and poorly differentiated histology (odds ratio 2.79 95% confidence interval [1.75, 4.49]). The rate of textbook oncologic outcome assuming reliable clinical staging was 43.8%; accounting for upstaging, the rate of textbook oncologic outcome was 22.5% (P < .001). CONCLUSION: In patients with cT1bN0 esophageal cancer, tumor size and histology are associated with the risk of inaccurate pretreatment clinical staging. Inaccuracies in clinical staging impact the rate at which providers achieve optimal oncologic outcomes.

Fragmented care in localized pancreatic cancer: Is commission on cancer accreditation associated with improved overall survival?

BACKGROUND: Prior studies of fragmentation of care in pancreatic cancer have not adjusted for indicators of hospital quality such as Commission on Cancer accreditation. The effect of fragmentation of care has not been well defined. METHODS: We queried the National Cancer Database to identify patients undergoing pancreaticoduodenectomy and distal pancreatectomy with perioperative systemic therapy for clinical stages I-III pancreatic cancer between 2006 and 2019. Patients who received systemic therapy at a center different than the center performing surgery were categorized as having fragmentation of care. Patients having fragmentation of care were further categorized on the basis of whether (fragmentation of care Commission on Cancer) or not (fragmentation of care non-Commission on Cancer) systemic therapy was administered at a facility accredited by the Commission on Cancer. RESULTS: A total of 11,732 patients met inclusion criteria; 5,668 (48.3%) underwent fragmentation of care, and 3,426 (29.2%) fragmentation of care non-Commission on Cancer. Patients undergoing fragmentation of care non-Commission on Cancer were less likely to receive neoadjuvant systemic therapy than those undergoing fragmentation of care Commission on Cancer or non-fragmented care (27.7% vs 40.1% vs 36.8%, P < .001). On Cox analysis, advanced age, comorbid disease, node-positive disease, and facility type were associated with risk of overall survival. Fragmentation of care was not (adjusted hazard ratio = 0.99, 95% confidence interval [0.94-1.06], P = .8). On Kaplan-Meier analysis, there were no significant differences in 5-year overall survival between treatment cohorts. CONCLUSION: In patients undergoing fragmentation of care for localized pancreatic cancer, those treated with systemic therapy in Commission on Cancer accredited facilities are more likely to be given neoadjuvant therapy but demonstrate no significant improvement in survival relative to those undergoing non-fragmented care or those undergoing fragmentation of care but receiving systemic therapy in nonaccredited facilities.

Association between COVID-19 diagnosis and postoperative outcomes in sleeve gastrectomy and Roux-en-Y gastric bypass: A national cohort study.

BACKGROUND: We seek to determine the association between COVID-19 diagnosis and postoperative outcomes following bariatric surgery. METHODS: Using the Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery Accreditation Quality Improvement Project (MBSAQIP) database, patients undergoing sleeve gastrectomy and gastric bypass without a COVID-19 diagnosis were 2:1 propensity-score matched to those with COVID-19 infection pre or postoperatively. RESULTS: 1369 (0.74 â€‹%) and 1331 (0.72 â€‹%) patients had a COVID-19 diagnosis within 14 days prior to or 30 days after their operation, respectively. Patients with preoperative COVID-19 infection had equivalent outcomes to COVID-19 negative patients (all p â€‹> â€‹0.05). Postoperative COVID-19 diagnosis was associated with worse outcomes including increased risk of anastomotic/staple line leak (1.1 â€‹% vs 0.1 â€‹%, p â€‹< â€‹0.001), postoperative pneumonia (2.9 â€‹% vs 0.1 â€‹%, p â€‹< â€‹0.001), and 30-day reoperation (2.1 â€‹% vs 0.9 â€‹%, p â€‹= â€‹0.002). CONCLUSIONS: Postoperative diagnosis of COVID-19 after bariatric surgery is associated with worse outcomes; however, it is safe to perform these procedures on patients recently convalesced from COVID-19 infection.

Does commission on cancer (CoC) accreditation mitigate the effect of care fragmentation on clinical outcome in localized rectal cancer?

BACKGROUND: Studies of fragmented care (FC) in rectal cancer have not adjusted for indicators of hospital quality and may misrepresent the effects of FC. METHODS: We queried the National Cancer Database to identify patients undergoing care for clinical stage II and III rectal adenocarcinoma between 2006 and 2019. Those undergoing FC were sub-categorized based on whether (FC CoC) or not (FC non-CoC) they received systemic therapy at CoC accredited facilities. RESULTS: 44,339 patients met inclusion criteria; 23,921 (54 â€‹%) underwent FC, 16,929 (71 â€‹%) FC non-CoC. Differences in utilization of neoadjuvant therapy (92.3 â€‹% vs 89.7 â€‹% vs 89.5 â€‹%, p â€‹< â€‹0.01) and 5-year overall survival (76.1 vs 75.5 vs 74.1 %, p â€‹< â€‹0.01) between treatment cohorts were marginal. CONCLUSION: In patients undergoing multimodality therapy for rectal cancer, care fragmentation is not associated with long-term clinical outcome. Decisions regarding where these patients go for systemic therapy may be safely made on the basis of ease of access.

Clinical stage T2N0M0 rectal adenocarcinoma: Is radical resection associated with improved overall survival in patients with low-risk histology?

BACKGROUND: Prior studies evaluating the efficacy of local excision compared to radical resection in the treatment of rectal adenocarcinoma lacked sufficient power to identify differences in outcomes for patients with cT2 disease but low-risk histopathology. We compared the outcomes of local excision and radical resection for low-risk histopathology and high-risk histology of patients with cT2N0M0 rectal adenocarcinoma to assess their outcomes. METHODS: We queried the National Cancer Database for patients presenting with cT2N0M0 rectal adenocarcinoma between 2004 and 2019 and categorized them as low-risk histopathology or high-risk histology. We used the Cox proportional hazards model to identify factors associated with the risk of all-cause mortality. We 1:1 propensity-matched patients who underwent local excision to patients who underwent radical resection and used the Kaplan-Meier method to compare overall survival for matched cohorts. RESULTS: Of the 4,446 patients selected, we classified 1,206 (27%) as high-risk histology and 3,240 (73%) as low-risk histopathology. Among the patients with high-risk histology, 121 (10%) underwent local excision and 1,085 (90%) underwent radical resection. Among the patients with low-risk histopathology, 340 (10%) underwent local excision and 2,900 (90%) radical resections. Whereas radical resection was associated with decreased risk of all-cause mortality and increased overall survival for patients with high-risk histology, it was not for patients with low-risk histopathology. CONCLUSION: The overall survival of patients with low-risk histopathology with cT2N0M0 rectal adenocarcinoma who undergo local excision is similar to those of patients with low-risk histopathology who undergo radical resection, suggesting local excision is a reasonable approach for these patients. In contrast, radical resection provides a significant survival advantage for patients with high-risk histology and should remain their treatment of choice.

Rectal neuroendocrine tumors: Can they be observed?

BACKGROUND: Studies comparing approaches to managing rectal neuroendocrine tumors are underpowered by institutional series. The efficacy of expectant management relative to local excision and radical resection is poorly defined. METHODS: We queried the National Cancer Database to identify patients presenting with non-metastatic rectal neuroendocrine tumors between 2004 and 2019. Multivariable regression was used to identify factors associated with expectant management. Cox modeling was used to identify factors associated with all-cause mortality. Patients undergoing expectant management were 1:1:1 propensity score matched for demographics and comorbid disease to those undergoing radical resection and local excision. The Kaplan-Meier method was used to compare overall survival profiles for matched cohorts. RESULTS: A total of 6,316 patients met the inclusion criteria. Of these, 5,211 (83%) underwent local excision, 600 (9.5%) radical resection, and 505 (8%) expectant management. On multivariable regression, factors associated with expectant management included Black race, government insurance, and tumor size <2.0 centimeters. On Cox modeling, factors associated with mortality included age >65 years, male sex, government insurance, comorbidity score >0, tumor size >2 centimeters, and poorly differentiated histology. On comparison of matched cohorts: patients undergoing radical resection had longer hospitalizations and higher readmission rates than those undergoing local excision; there was no difference in overall survival between cohorts in patients with stage 1 disease; in stage 2 and 3 diseases, patients undergoing local excision and radical resection demonstrated improved rates of overall survival relative to those undergoing expectant management. CONCLUSION: Expectant management is a reasonable approach for patients with stage 1 rectal neuroendocrine tumors. Local excision should be the preferred treatment option for those presenting with stage 2/3 disease.

Prognosis of Unresected vs Resected Small Pulmonary Carcinoid Tumors.

BACKGROUND: Previous studies have shown that overall survival after lung resection for pulmonary carcinoid tumors is favorable. It is unclear what the prognosis is for observation rather than resection for small carcinoid tumors. METHODS: We queried the National Cancer Database to identify patients presenting with primary pulmonary carcinoid tumors between 2004 and 2017. We included patients with small (<3 cm) primary pulmonary carcinoids, who were observed or underwent a lung resection. To minimize confounding by indication, we used propensity score matching, while accounting for age, sex, race, insurance type, Charlson-Deyo comorbidity score, typical and atypical histology, tumor size, and year of diagnosis. We used Kaplan-Meier survival analyses to compare 5-year overall survival in the matched cohorts. RESULTS: Of 8435 patients with small pulmonary carcinoids, 783 (9.3%) underwent observation and 7652 (91%) underwent surgical resection. After propensity score matching, surgical resection was associated with improved 5-year overall survival (66% vs 81%, P < .001). No significant difference in overall survival was found between wedge and anatomic resection (88% vs 88%, P = .83). In patients undergoing resection, lymph node sampling at the time of wedge and anatomic resection increased 5-year overall survival (90% vs 86%, P = .0042; 88% vs 82%, P = .04, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Surgical resection of small pulmonary carcinoids is associated with improved survival compared with observation. When surgical resection is performed, wedge and anatomic resection result in similar survival, and lymph node sampling improves survival.

Early-Stage Ampullary Cancer: Is Local Excision an Effective Alternative to Radical Resection?

BACKGROUND: The efficacy of local excision (transduodenal or endoscopic ampullectomy) in treating early-stage ampullary cancer has not been well defined. STUDY DESIGN: We queried the National Cancer Database to identify patients undergoing either local tumor excision or radical resection for early-stage (cTis-T2, N0, M0) ampullary adenocarcinoma between 2004 and 2018. Cox modeling was used to identify factors associated with overall survival. Patients undergoing local excision were then 1:1 propensity score-matched for demographics, hospital level, and histopathological factors to those undergoing radical resection. The Kaplan-Meier method was used to compare overall survival (OS) profiles for matched cohorts. RESULTS: A total of 1,544 patients met inclusion criteria. A total of 218 (14%) underwent local tumor excision, and 1,326 (86%) radical resection. On propensity score matching, 218 patients undergoing local excision were successfully matched to 218 patients undergoing radical resection. On comparison of matched cohorts, those undergoing local excision had lower rate of margin-negative (R0) resection (85.1% vs 99%, p < 0.001) and lower median lymph node count (0 vs 13, p < 0.001) but had significantly shorter length of initial hospitalization (median days: 1 vs 10 days, p < 0.001), lower rate of 30-day readmission (3.3% vs 12.0%, p = 0.001), and lower rate of 30-day mortality (1.8% vs 6.5%, p = 0.016) than patients undergoing radical resection. There was no statistically significant difference in OS between the matched cohorts (46.9% vs 52.0%, p = 0.46). CONCLUSIONS: In patients presenting with early-stage ampullary adenocarcinoma, local tumor excision is associated with higher rate of R1 resection but accelerated postprocedure recovery and patterns of OS comparable with those after radical resection.

Association of Resident Independence With Short-term Clinical Outcome in Core General Surgery Procedures.

Importance: Prior studies evaluating the effect of resident independence on operative outcome draw from case mixes that cross disciplines and overrepresent cases with low complexity. The association between resident independence and clinical outcome in core general surgical procedures is not well defined. Objective: To evaluate the level of autonomy provided to residents during their training, trends in resident independence over time, and the association between resident independence in the operating room and clinical outcome. Design, Setting, and Participants: Using the Veterans Affairs Surgical Quality Improvement Program database from 2005 to 2021, outcomes in resident autonomy were compared using multivariable logistic regression and propensity score matching. Data on patients undergoing appendectomy, cholecystectomy, partial colectomy, inguinal hernia, and small-bowel resection in a procedure with a resident physician involved were included. Exposures: Resident independence was graded as the attending surgeon scrubbed into the operation (AS) or the attending surgeon did not scrub (ANS). Main Outcomes and Measures: Outcomes of interest included rates of postoperative complication, severity of complications, and death. Results: Of 109 707 patients who met inclusion criteria, 11 181 (10%) underwent operations completed with ANS (mean [SD] age of patients, 61 [14] years; 10 527 [94%] male) and 98 526 (90%) operations completed with AS (mean [SD] age of patients, 63 [13] years; 93 081 [94%] male). Appendectomy (1112 [17%]), cholecystectomy (3185 [11%]), and inguinal hernia (5412 [13%]) were more often performed with ANS than small-bowel resection (527 [6%]) and colectomy (945 [4%]). On multivariable logistic regression adjusting for procedure type, age, body mass index, functional status, comorbidities, American Society of Anesthesiologists class, wound class, case priority, admission status, facility type, and year, factors associated with a complication included increasing age (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.19 [95% CI, 1.16-1.22]), emergent case priority (aOR, 1.41 [95% CI, 1.33-1.50]), and resident independence (aOR, 1.12 [95% CI, 1.03-1.22]). On propensity score matching, AS cases were score matched 1:1 to ANS cases based on the variables listed above. Comparing matched cohorts, there was no difference in complication rates (817 [7%] vs 784 [7%]) or death (91 [1%] vs 102 [1%]) based on attending physician involvement. Conclusions and Relevance: Core general surgery cases performed by senior-level trainees in such a way that the attending physician is not scrubbed into the case are being done safely with no significant difference in rates of postoperative complication.

Laparoscopic and robotic paraesophageal hernia repair in United States veterans: Clinical outcomes and risk factors associated with reoperation recurrence.

BACKGROUND: Despite surgical advances, rates of paraesophageal hernia recurrence remain high. We evaluate outcomes of paraesophageal hernia repair in United States veterans, safety of robotic technology, and risk factors for reoperation for recurrence. METHODS: The Veterans Affairs Surgical Quality Improvement Program database was queried for patients undergoing laparoscopic or robotic paraesophageal hernia repair from 2010 to 2021. The effect of patient and operative characteristics on outcomes was evaluated. RESULTS: 2,444 patients underwent paraesophageal hernia repair. 62 (2.5%) had a reoperation for recurrence. Emergent priority (aOR 18.3 [5.9-56.2]) and younger age (aOR 0.7 [0.5-0.9]) were associated with increased risk of reoperation. On comparison of propensity matched cohorts, repairs done robotically took longer (4.17 vs. 3.57 h, p < 0.001) but had 30-day outcomes and rates of reoperation for recurrence equivalent to laparoscopic repairs (p > 0.05). CONCLUSION: Emergent priority and younger age are associated with increased risk of reoperation for recurrent paraesophageal hernia. Robotic approaches take longer but are safe.

Use of a national registry to define a composite quality metric for rectal cancer.

BACKGROUND: Quality assessment in oncologic surgery has traditionally involved reporting discrete metrics that may be difficult for patients and referring providers to interpret. We define a composite quality metric (CQM) for resection in rectal cancer. METHODS: We queried the National Cancer Database to identify patients undergoing low anterior resection for clinical stage II-III rectal adenocarcinoma between 2010 and 2017. CQM was defined as appropriate neoadjuvant therapy, margin-negative resection, appropriate lymph node assessment, postoperative length of stay (LOS) < 75th percentile, and no 30-day readmission or mortality. RESULTS: 19,721 patients met inclusion criteria; 8,083 (41%) had a CQM. The most common reasons for failure to achieve CQM: inadequate node assessment (27%), prolonged LOS (26%). On Cox modeling, CQM (aHR 0.70, 95% CI [0.66, 0.75]) was associated with improved overall survival. CONCLUSION: CQM is independently associated with improved survival in rectal cancer and may be an effective measure of quality.

A matched cohort comparison of endoscopic resection, chemoradiation and esophagectomy in the treatment of early-stage esophageal squamous cell carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: The efficacy of endoscopic resection in early-stage esophageal squamous cell carcinoma has not been defined. METHODS: We queried the National Cancer Database to identify patients presenting with cT1N0M0 esophageal squamous cell cancer between 2004 and 2017. Transitive match methods were used to 1:1:1 propensity match patients undergoing endoscopic resection to patients undergoing esophagectomy and those undergoing definitive chemoradiotherapy. Kaplan Meier method was used to compare 5-year overall survival profiles for matched cohorts. RESULTS: 301 patients (19%) underwent endoscopic resection; 497 (32%) esophagectomy; 767 (49%) chemoradiation. On comparison of matched cohorts, patients undergoing chemoradiation demonstrated lower rates of survival than those undergoing esophagectomy (32% vs. 59%, p < 0.0001) while those undergoing endoscopic resection demonstrated rates comparable to patients undergoing esophagectomy (53% vs. 59%, p = 0.77). CONCLUSIONS: For cT1N0M0 esophageal squamous cell cancer, endoscopic resection is associated with rates of survival similar to those following esophagectomy and better than those following definitive chemoradiation.

The role of endoscopic resection in early-stage esophageal adenocarcinoma: Esophagectomy is associated with improved survival in patients presenting with clinical stage T1bN0 disease.

BACKGROUND: Studies evaluating endoscopic resection for early-stage (cT1N0M0) esophageal adenocarcinoma include small numbers of patients with T1b tumors. The role of endoscopic resection in esophageal adenocarcinoma remains incompletely defined. METHODS: We queried the National Cancer Database to identify patients presenting with esophageal adenocarcinoma between 2010 and 2017. Those treated with neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy and endoscopic ablation were excluded. Patients undergoing endoscopic resection for cT1a and cT1b tumors were separately 1:1 propensity matched for relevant demographic and tumor factors to those undergoing esophagectomy for disease of like clinical stage. The Kaplan-Meier method was used to compare 5-year overall survival for matched cohorts. RESULTS: A total of 3,157 patients met the inclusion criteria. Of these patients, 2,024 (64.1%) had cT1a and 1133 (35.9%) had cT1b disease. Among those with cT1a tumors, 461 (22.8%) underwent esophagectomy, 1,357 (67.0%) endoscopic resection, and 206 (10.2%) treatment with chemoradiotherapy alone. Among those with cT1b tumors, 649 (57.3%) underwent esophagectomy, 293 (25.9%) endoscopic resection, and 191 (16.8%) chemoradiotherapy. On unadjusted comparison, patients treated for esophageal adenocarcinoma with chemoradiotherapy had a lower rate of overall survival than those treated with endoscopic resection or esophagectomy (26.1% vs 73.1% vs 75.5%, P < .001). On comparison of matched cohorts, patients undergoing endoscopic resection for cT1b tumors demonstrated lower rates of overall survival than those undergoing esophagectomy (60.6% vs 74.1%, P = .0013), whereas those undergoing endoscopic resection for cT1a tumors demonstrated rates of overall survival statistically similar to those undergoing esophagectomy (77.8% vs 80.2%, P = .75). CONCLUSION: Esophagectomy is associated with improved overall survival relative to endoscopic resection in patients presenting with cT1bN0M0 but not in those with cT1a esophageal adenocarcinoma.

Is local excision an appropriate treatment modality in patients presenting with early-stage (cT1 N0 M0) rectal adenocarcinoma?

BACKGROUND: Prior studies evaluating the safety and efficacy of local excision relative to surgical resection in early-stage rectal adenocarcinoma have primarily included low rectal cancers treated with abdominoperineal resection as control comparison cohorts. The role of local excision in early-stage rectal adenocarcinoma is incompletely defined. METHODS: We queried the National Cancer Database to identify patients with cT1 N0 M0 rectal adenocarcinoma between 2004 and 2019. Patients undergoing abdominoperineal resection were excluded. Multivariable regression was used to identify factors associated with use of local excision instead of low anterior resection. Patients undergoing local excision were propensity score matched for age, sex, demographic characteristics, Charlson-Deyo comorbidity class score, and tumor grade and size to those undergoing low anterior resection. Short-term clinical outcomes and 5-year overall survival for matched cohorts were compared by standard methods. RESULTS: A total of 5,693 patients met inclusion criteria; 1,973 patients underwent local excision and 3,720 low anterior resection. Age (adjusted odds ratio 1.26; 95% confidence interval, 1.17-1.37), tumor histology (poorly differentiated histology: adjusted odds ratio 0.66; 95% confidence interval, 0.51-0.86), and size (>4 cm: adjusted odds ratio 0.20; 95% confidence interval, 0.16-0.25) were associated with choice of intervention. On comparison of matched cohorts, patients undergoing LE demonstrated shorter hospital stay (2.4 ±9.8 vs 5.6 ±8.1 days; P < .001) and lower readmission rate (4% vs 7%; P = .002) but higher margin-positive resection rates (8% vs 2%; P < .001). Overall survival profiles for patients undergoing local excision were comparable with those for low anterior resection. CONCLUSION: In patients with cT1 N0 M0 rectal adenocarcinoma, local excision is associated with a higher margin-positive resection rate than low anterior resection but affords accelerated postprocedure recovery and comparable rates of overall survival.

The benefit of liver transplant beyond Milan criteria: An analysis using the National Cancer Database.

BACKGROUND: Published studies examining the efficacy of liver transplantation in patients presenting with hepatocellular cancer beyond the traditional Milan criteria for liver transplantation have primarily been single institution series with limited ability to compare outcomes to alternative methods of management. METHODS: We queried the National Cancer Database to identify patients presenting between 2004 and 2016 with histologically confirmed clinical stage III and IVA hepatocellular cancer. Multivariable regression was used to identify factors associated with liver transplantation. Patients undergoing liver transplantation were 1:1 propensity score-matched for age, demographics, comorbid disease, clinical stage, and histologic resection margin to those undergoing surgical resection. The Kaplan-Meier method was used to compare overall survival profiles for matched cohorts. RESULTS: Seven hundred and ninety-two patients met inclusion criteria-590 (74.5%) underwent surgical resection and 202 (25.5%) liver transplantation. On adjusted analysis, patients undergoing liver transplantation were less likely to have advanced age (>60 years; odds ratio 0.39, 95% confidence interval [0.21-0.71]) and to be of Black race (odds ratio 0.42, 95% confidence interval [0.23-0.73]) or Asian (odds ratio 0.25, 95% confidence interval [0.11-0.53]) ethnicity but were more likely to have advanced (Charlson score >2) comorbidity scores, (odds ratio 2.48, 95% confidence interval [1.58-3.90]) and more likely to have private health insurance (odds ratio 4.17, 95% confidence interval [1.31-18.66]) than those undergoing surgical resection. On Kaplan-Meier analysis of matched cohorts, patients undergoing liver transplantation demonstrated significantly better rates of 5-year overall survival (65.3% vs 26.3%, P < .0001) and longer median overall survival times than those undergoing resection (53.1 ± 2.78 vs 26.9 ± 1.20 months, P < .0001). CONCLUSION: Liver transplantation offers the potential to be an effective treatment modality in select patients presenting with stage III and IVA hepatocellular cancer.

Early-stage gastric and gastroesophageal junction cancer: Is there a survival benefit to neoadjuvant therapy?

BACKGROUND: Several randomized controlled trials have evaluated the efficacy of neoadjuvant chemotherapy in the management of resectable gastric cancer. Most patients in these studies had node-positive disease or more advanced T stage. The benefit of neoadjuvant therapy in patients with early-stage gastric cancer remains unclear. METHODS: We queried the National Cancer Data Base to identify patients presenting with clinical stage IB gastric adenocarcinoma between 2006 and 2015. Multivariable logistic regression was used to identify factors associated with receipt of neoadjuvant therapy. Patients undergoing neoadjuvant therapy were 1:1 propensity matched for age, year of diagnosis, Charlson index, insurance, tumor location, tumor grade, surgical approach, lymph nodes examined, and receipt of adjuvant therapy. Log rank testing was used to evaluate differences in overall survival between matched cohorts. RESULTS: A total of 1,258 patients met the inclusion criteria; 402 (32%) received neoadjuvant therapy. On multivariable logistic regression, increasing age (odds ratio 0.52, 95% confidence interval 0.34-0.80) was associated with reduced adjusted odds of undergoing neoadjuvant therapy, whereas proximal tumor location (odds ratio 3.67, 95% confidence interval 2.71-4.99) and poorly differentiated histology (odds ratio 1.78, 95% confidence interval 1.00-3.16) were associated with an increased adjusted odds of undergoing neoadjuvant therapy. A total of 271 patients undergoing neoadjuvant therapy were successfully matched to 271 patients undergoing upfront resection. There was no statistically significant difference in 5-year overall survival (58.8% vs 50.3%, P = .512) between matched cohorts. CONCLUSION: Neoadjuvant therapy does not appear to be associated with an overall survival benefit in patients with stage IB stage gastric cancer.

Comparative effectiveness of stereotactic body radiation therapy versus surgery for stage I lung cancer in otherwise healthy patients: An instrumental variable analysis.

Objectives: Stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) is an established primary treatment modality in patients with lung cancer who have multiple comorbidities and/or advanced-stage disease. However, its role in otherwise healthy patients with stage I lung cancer is unclear. In this context, we compared the effectiveness of SBRT versus surgery on overall survival using a national database. Methods: We identified all patient with clinical stage I non-small cell lung cancer from the National Cancer Database from 2004 to 2016. We defined otherwise healthy patients as those with a Charlson-Deyo comorbidity index of 0 and whose treatment plan included options for either SBRT or surgery. We further excluded patients who received SBRT due to a contraindication to surgery. We first used propensity score matching and Cox proportional hazard models to identify associations. Next, we fit 2-stage residual inclusion models using an instrumental variables approach to estimate the effects of SBRT versus surgery on long-term survival. We used the hospital SBRT utilization rate as the instrument. Results: Of 25,963 patients meeting all inclusion/exclusion criteria, 5465 (21%) were treated with SBRT. On both Cox proportional hazards modeling and propensity-score matched Kaplan-Meier analysis, surgical resection was associated with improved survival relative to SBRT. In the instrumental-variable-adjusted model, SBRT remained associated with decreased survival (hazard ratio, 2.64; P < .001). Both lobectomy (hazard ratio, 0.17) and sublobar resections (hazard ratio, 0.28) were associated with improved overall survival compared with SBRT (P < .001). Conclusions: In otherwise healthy patients with stage I NSCLC, surgical resection is associated with a survival benefit compared with SBRT. This is true for both lobar and sublobar resections.