Assessing Surgeon Familiarity with the Commission on Cancer Operative Standards for Cancer Surgery.

BACKGROUND: In response to growing evidence that proper performance of operative techniques during cancer surgery is associated with improved patient outcomes, the American College of Surgeons (ACS) implemented six operative standards as part of Commission on Cancer (CoC) accreditation. This study aimed to assess surgeon familiarity with these standards when first introduced and 2 years after their adoption. METHODS: The ACS Cancer Surgery Standards Program distributed an anonymous 36-question survey to CoC-accredited cancer programs in 2021 and 2023. Questions specific to operative techniques determined the Surgery Score, and those specific to the accreditation standards determined the Standards Score. Mean scores were compared using one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and t tests. RESULTS: The survey was completed by 376 surgeons in 2021 and 380 surgeons in 2023. The Surgery Scores were higher than the Standards Scores in 2021 and 2023. The surgeons who practiced at institutions with CoC accreditation had significantly higher Standards Scores than the surgeons at non-accredited institutions in 2021 (p = 0.005) and 2023 (p = 0.004), but not significantly different Surgery Scores. CONCLUSIONS: The baseline survey in 2021 demonstrated significant knowledge of technical aspects of cancer surgery among a broad surgeon base, but a need for greater understanding of the accreditation standards. The repeat survey distribution 2 years after rollout of the operative standards and associated educational programing showed increased awareness surrounding the operative standards in 2023 and a trend toward improvement in knowledge of the accreditation standards across all specialties. Further evaluation will be directed toward compliance with the accreditation standards.

Cancer Survivorship Care in the United States at Facilities Accredited by the Commission on Cancer.

Importance: Since 2021, American College of Surgeons Commission on Cancer (CoC) accreditation standards require providing a survivorship program for patients with adult-onset cancer treated with curative intent. Since more than 70% of all patients with cancer in the US are treated at CoC-accredited facilities, this presents an opportunity for a landscape analysis of survivorship care availability. Objective: To determine the prevalence, types, and outcomes of cancer survivorship services at CoC-accredited facilities. Design, Setting, and Participants: This survey study used an anonymous, online, cross-sectional survey conducted from May 4 to 25, 2023. Participants were CoC-accredited facilities in the US representing diverse CoC program categories, institutional characteristics, geographic regions, and practice types. Department of Veterans Affairs cancer programs were excluded due to data usage restrictions. Data were analyzed from July to October 2023. Exposure: CoC Survivorship Standard 4.8 was released in October 2019 and programs were expected to adhere to the Standard beginning January 1, 2021. Main Outcomes and Measures: Questions included self-reported survivorship program characteristics, availability of services aligned to CoC Survivorship Standard 4.8, and perceived program impacts. Response frequencies and proportions were determined in aggregate and by CoC program category. Results: There were 1400 eligible programs, and 384 programs participated (27.4% response rate). All regions and eligible program categories were represented, and most had analytic caseloads of 500 to 4999 patients in 2021. Most survivorship program personnel included nurses (334 programs [87.0%]) and social workers (278 programs [72.4%]), while physical (180 programs [46.9%]) and occupational (87 programs [22.7%]) therapists were less common. Services most endorsed as available for all survivors were screening for new cancers (330 programs [87.5%]), nutritional counseling (325 programs [85.3%]), and referrals to specialists (320 programs [84.7%]), while treatment summaries (242 programs [64.7%]), and survivorship care plans (173 programs [43.0%]), sexual health (217 programs [57.3%]), and fertility (214 programs [56.9%]) were less common. Survivorship services were usually delivered by cancer treatment teams (243 programs [63.3%]) rather than specialized survivorship clinics (120 programs [31.3%]). For resources needed, additional advanced practice clinicians with dedicated survivorship effort (205 programs [53.4%]) and electronic health record enhancements (185 programs [48.2%]) were most endorsed. Lack of referrals and low patient awareness were endorsed as the primary barriers. A total of 335 programs (87.2%) agreed that Survivorship Standard 4.8 helped advance their programs. Conclusions and Relevance: These findings of this survey study of CoC-accredited programs establish a benchmark for survivorship care delivery in the US, identify gaps in specific services and opportunities for intervention, contribute to longitudinal reevaluation for tracking progress nationally, and suggest the value of survivorship care standards.

Standardization of Colon Resection for Cancer: An Overview of the American College of Surgeons Commission on Cancer Standard 5.6.

The purpose of this editorial is to review the American College of Surgeons Commission on Cancer Standard 5.6, which pertains to curative intent colon resections performed for cancer. We first provide a broad overview of the Operative Standard, followed by the underlying rationale, technical components, and documentation requirements.

Setting the Standard for Cutaneous Melanoma Wide Local Excision: An Overview of the American College of Surgeons Commission on Cancer Standard 5.5.

The purpose of this article is to review the objectives of the American College of Surgeons Commission on Cancer Operative Standards with a specific focus on Standard 5.5, which pertains to curative intent wide local excision of primary cutaneous melanoma lesions. We review the details and rationale of the standard itself, including its requirement to include specific elements and responses in synoptic format in operative reports.

Surveillance Imaging after Primary Diagnosis of Ductal Carcinoma in Situ.

Background Guidelines recommend annual surveillance imaging after diagnosis of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS). Guideline adherence has not been characterized in a contemporary cohort. Purpose To identify uptake and determinants of surveillance imaging in women who underwent treatment for DCIS. Materials and Methods A stratified random sample of women who underwent breast-conserving surgery for primary DCIS between 2008 and 2014 was retrospectively selected from 1330 facilities in the United States. Imaging examinations were recorded from date of diagnosis until first distant recurrence, death, loss to follow-up, or end of study (November 2018). Imaging after treatment was categorized into 10 12-month periods starting 6 months after diagnosis. Primary outcome was per-period receipt of asymptomatic surveillance imaging (mammography, MRI, or US). Secondary outcome was diagnosis of ipsilateral invasive breast cancer. Multivariable logistic regression with repeated measures and generalized estimating equations was used to model receipt of imaging. Rates of diagnosis with ipsilateral invasive breast cancer were compared between women who did and those who did not undergo imaging in the 6-18-month period after diagnosis using inverse probability-weighted Kaplan-Meier estimators. Results A total of 12 559 women (median age, 60 years; IQR, 52-69 years) were evaluated. Uptake of surveillance imaging was 75% in the first period and decreased over time (P < .001). Across the first 5 years after treatment, 52% of women participated in consistent annual surveillance. Surveillance was lower in Black (adjusted odds ratio [OR], 0.80; 95% CI: 0.74, 0.88; P < .001) and Hispanic (OR, 0.82; 95% CI: 0.72, 0.94; P = .004) women than in White women. Women who underwent surveillance in the first period had a higher 6-year rate of diagnosis of invasive cancer (1.6%; 95% CI: 1.3, 1.9) than those who did not (1.1%; 95% CI: 0.7, 1.4; difference: 0.5%; 95% CI: 0.1, 1.0; P = .03). Conclusion Half of women did not consistently adhere to imaging surveillance guidelines across the first 5 years after treatment, with racial disparities in adherence rates. © RSNA, 2023 Supplemental material is available for this article. See also the editorial by Rahbar and Dontchos in this issue.

Peritoneal recurrence after resection for Stage I-III colorectal cancer: A population analysis.

BACKGROUND: Colorectal cancer (CRC) often recurs in the peritoneum, although the pattern of peritoneal recurrence (PR) has received less attention. We sought to describe the presentation and risk factors for PR following CRC resection. METHODS: We performed a cohort study of patients undergoing resection of Stage I-III CRC from 2006 to 2007 using merged data from a Commission on Cancer Special Study and the National Cancer Database. We estimated the timing, method of detection, and risk factors for isolated PR. RESULTS: Here, 8991 patients were included and isolate PR occurred in 77 (0.9%) patients. The median time to PR was 16.2 months (intrquartile range = 9.3-28.0 months) and most patients were identified via new symptoms (36.4%). Pathologic factors associated with increased odds of PR included higher T stage (T3 vs. T2, odds ratio [OR] = 4.8, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.5-15.7), N stage (N1 vs. N0, OR = 2.00, CI = 1.1-3.7), and signet ring (OR = 8.2, CI = 3.0-22.3) or mucinous histology (OR = 2.6, CI = 1.5-4.7). CONCLUSIONS: The majority of PR was detected within 18 months and few were identified by surveillance. Advanced T/N stage and signet ring/mucinous histology were associated with increased odds of PR.

Surveillance Imaging vs Symptomatic Recurrence Detection and Survival in Stage II-III Breast Cancer (AFT-01).

BACKGROUND: Guidelines for follow-up after locoregional breast cancer treatment recommend imaging for distant metastases only in the presence of patient signs and/or symptoms. However, guidelines have not been updated to reflect advances in imaging, systemic therapy, or the understanding of biological subtype. We assessed the association between mode of distant recurrence detection and survival. METHODS: In this observational study, a stage-stratified random sample of women with stage II-III breast cancer in 2006-2007 and followed through 2016 was selected, including up to 10 women from each of 1217 Commission on Cancer facilities (n = 10 076). The explanatory variable was mode of recurrence detection (asymptomatic imaging vs signs and/or symptoms). The outcome was time from initial cancer diagnosis to death. Registrars abstracted scan type, intent (cancer-related vs not, asymptomatic surveillance vs not), and recurrence. Data were merged with each patient's National Cancer Database record. RESULTS: Surveillance imaging detected 23.3% (284 of 1220) of distant recurrences (76.7%, 936 of 1220 by signs and/or symptoms). Based on propensity-weighted multivariable Cox proportional hazards models, patients with asymptomatic imaging compared with sign and/or symptom detected recurrences had a lower risk of death if estrogen receptor (ER) and progesterone receptor (PR) negative, HER2 negative (triple negative; hazard ratio [HR] = 0.73, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.54 to 0.99), or HER2 positive (HR = 0.51, 95% CI = 0.33 to 0.80). No association was observed for ER- or PR-positive, HER2-negative (HR = 1.14, 95% CI = 0.91 to 1.44) cancers. CONCLUSIONS: Recurrence detection by asymptomatic imaging compared with signs and/or symptoms was associated with lower risk of death for triple-negative and HER2-positive, but not ER- or PR-positive, HER2-negative cancers. A randomized trial is warranted to evaluate imaging surveillance for metastases results in these subgroups.

Technical Standards for Cancer Surgery: Improving Patient Care through Synoptic Operative Reporting.

The Operative Standards for Cancer Surgery manuals define critical elements of optimal cancer surgery based on data and expert opinion. These key aspects of commonly performed cancer operations define technical standards that can be used as a quality assurance tool for practicing surgical oncologists and as an educational tool for trainees. This article provides background on these operative standards and their subsequent integration into synoptic operative report templates. With the goal of codifying the most important aspects of surgical oncology care to elevate and harmonize cancer care, the American College of Surgeons Cancer Programs has developed comprehensive synoptic operative reports. Synoptic operative reports are structured so that key data elements are recorded in a standardized format with prespecified terminology. In contrast to the narrative or structured operative reports frequently used by surgeons, these synoptic operative reports improve semantic clarity, provide uniform fields for abstraction, and facilitate passive data collection and real-time analytics while delivering key information for downstream multidisciplinary patient care. In this way, the synoptic operative report is a key component of a comprehensive effort to elevate the quality of cancer care nationally.

Technical Standards for Cancer Surgery: Commission on Cancer Standards 5.3-5.8.

Clinical practice guidelines in oncology have typically focused on workup, disease staging, and medical management. Although recommendations for surgical care have been included in these guidelines, those recommendations have primarily addressed issues such as the role of surgery or the incorporation of surgery into multidisciplinary treatment strategies, not the technical performance of the operative procedures themselves. Therefore, the quality of surgery, the only component of multidisciplinary cancer care proven to be potentially curative, has been poorly controlled. During the past decade, the American College of Surgeons (ACS) cancer programs have attempted to fill this gap by developing "operative standards" for cancer surgery. This report discusses the history of the operative standards, highlights evidence to demonstrate their efficacy, and describes the activities of the ACS Commission on Cancer and Cancer Surgery Standards Program toward disseminating and implementing them.

Oncology team perspectives on distress screening: a multisite study of a well-established use of patient-reported outcomes for clinical assessment.

PURPOSE: Cancer care team attitudes towards distress screening are key to its success and sustainability. Previous qualitative research has interviewed staff mostly around the startup phase. We evaluate oncology teams' perspectives on psychosocial distress screening, including perceived strengths and challenges, in settings where it has been operational for years. METHODS: We conducted, transcribed, and analyzed semi-structured interviews with 71 cancer care team members (e.g., MDs, RNs, MSWs) at 18 Commission on Cancer-accredited cancer programs including those serving underrepresented populations. RESULTS: Strengths of distress screening identified by participants included identifying patient needs and testing provider assumptions. Staff indicated it improved patient-provider communication and other aspects of care. Challenges to distress screening included patient barriers (e.g., respondent burden) and lack of electronic system interoperability. Participants expressed the strengths of distress screening (n = 291) more than challenges (n = 86). Suggested improvements included use of technology to collect data, report results, and make referrals; complete screenings prior to appointments; longitudinal assessment; additional staff training; and improve resources to address patient needs. CONCLUSION: Cancer care team members' perspectives on well-established distress screening programs largely replicate findings of previous studies focusing on the startup phase, but there are important differences: team members expressed more strengths than challenges, suggesting a positive attitude. While our sample described many challenges described previously, they did not indicate challenges with scoring and interpreting the distress screening questionnaire. The differences in attitudes expressed in response to mature versus startup implementations provide important insights to inform efforts to sustain and optimize distress screening.

Rates of Ipsilateral Local-regional Recurrence in High-risk Patients Undergoing Immediate Post-mastectomy Reconstruction (AFT-01).

BACKGROUND: Some surgeons remain hesitant to perform immediate breast reconstruction (IBR) in patients with higher risk cancers owing to concerns about cancer recurrence and/or detection. Our objective was to determine the rate of ipsilateral local-regional recurrence for stage II/III patients who underwent IBR. METHODS: The National Cancer Database special study mechanism was used to create a stratified sample of women diagnosed with stage II/III breast cancer from 1217 facilities. Demographic, tumor, and recurrence data for women who underwent mastectomy with or without IBR were abstracted, including location of recurrence and method of detection. Estimates of 5-year local-regional recurrence rates were calculated and factors associated with recurrence were identified with multivariable Cox regression. RESULTS: Some 13% (692/5318) of stage II/III patients underwent IBR after mastectomy. Patients undergoing IBR were younger (P < .001), with fewer comorbid conditions (P < .001), and with lower tumor burden in the breast (P = .001) and the lymph nodes (P = 0.01). The 5-year rate of ipsilateral local-regional recurrence was 3.6% with no significant difference between patients with or without IBR (3.0% vs. 3.7%, P = .4). Most recurrences were detected by the patient (45%) or on physician examination (24%). Reconstruction was not associated with recurrence on multivariable analysis (hazard ratio = 0.83, P = .52). CONCLUSION: Women with stage II/III breast cancer selected for IBR had similar rates of ipsilateral local-regional recurrence compared with those undergoing mastectomy alone. Offering IBR after mastectomy in a patient-centered manner to select patients with stage II/III breast cancer is an acceptable consideration.

Uptake of Breast Cancer Clinical Trials at Minority Serving Cancer Centers.

BACKGROUND: Most minorities receive cancer care at minority-serving hospitals (MSHs) that have been associated with disparate treatment between Black and White patients. OBJECTIVE: Our aim was to examine the uptake of clinical trials that have changed axillary management in breast cancer patients at MSH and non-MSH cancer centers. METHODS: The National Cancer Database was used to identify patients eligible for the American College of Surgeons Oncology Group Z0011 and Z1071 trials, and mastectomy patients fulfilling the European AMAROS trial. Uptake of trial results (omission of axillary lymph node dissection) was analyzed between patients treated at MSHs and non-MSHs and adjusted for patient, tumor, and facility factors. MSHs were defined as the top decile of hospitals according to the proportion of Black and Hispanic patients treated. RESULTS: Of 7167 patients eligible for Z0011, 4546 for Z0171, and 9433 for AMAROS from 2015 to 2016, clinical trial uptake was seen in 1195 (74.6%) MSH and 4056 (72.9%) non-MSH patients (p = 0.173) for Z0011, 588 (41.9%) MSH and 1366 (43.5%) non-MSH patients for Z1071 (p = 0.302), and 272 (11.7%) MSH and 996 (14.0%) non-MSH patients (p = 0.005) for AMAROS. On adjusted analyses, MSH status was not significant for uptake of any of the three trials. Black race, socioeconomic status, and insurance were not associated with clinical trial uptake. CONCLUSION: The uptake of three landmark clinical trials of axillary management in breast cancer was not different at MSH and non-MSH centers despite adjustment for social determinants of health. At the Commission on Cancer-accredited centers in this analysis, MSH status did not affect the uptake of evidence-based care.