Medicaid expansion and palliative care for advanced-stage liver cancer.

BACKGROUND: Medicaid expansion (ME) has contributed to transforming the United States healthcare system. However, its effect on palliative care of primary liver cancers remains unknown. This study aimed to evaluate the association between ME and the receipt of palliative treatment in advanced-stage liver cancer. METHODS: Patients diagnosed with stage IV hepatocellular carcinoma or intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma were identified from the National Cancer Database and divided into pre-expansion (2010-2013) and postexpansion (2015-2019) cohorts. Logistic regression identified predictors of palliative treatment. Difference-in-difference (DID) analysis assessed changes in palliative care use between patients living in ME states and patients living in non-ME states. RESULTS: Among 12,516 patients, 4582 (36.6%) were diagnosed before expansion, and 7934 (63.6%) were diagnosed after expansion. Overall, rates of palliative treatment increased after ME (18.1% [pre-expansion] vs 22.3% [postexpansion]; P < .001) and are more pronounced among ME states. Before expansion, only cancer type and education attainment were associated with the receipt of palliative treatment. Conversely, after expansion, race, insurance, location, cancer type, and ME status (odds ratio [OR], 1.23; 95% CI, 1.06-1.44; P = .018) were all associated with palliative care. Interestingly, the odds were higher if treatment involved receipt of pain management (OR, 2.05; 95% CI, 1.23-2.43; P = .006). Adjusted DID analysis confirmed increased rates of palliative treatment among patients living in ME states relative to non-ME states (DID, 4.4%; 95% CI, 1.2-7.7; P = .008); however, racial disparities persist (White, 5.6; 95% CI, 1.4-9.8; P = .009; minority, 2.6; 95% CI, -2.5 to 7.6; P = .333). CONCLUSION: The implementation of ME contributed to increased rates of palliative treatment for patients residing in ME states after expansion. However, racial disparities persist even after ME, resulting in inequitable access to palliative care.

Comparison of tumor response and outcomes of patients with hepatocellular carcinoma after multimodal treatment including immune checkpoint inhibitors - a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: The efficacy of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) combined with tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs), trans-arterial chemoembolization (TACE), and radiotherapy to treat hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) has not been well-defined. We performed a meta-analysis to characterize tumor response and survival associated with multimodal treatment of HCC. METHODS: PubMed, Embase, Medline, Scopus, and CINAHL databases were searched (1990-2022). Random-effect meta-analysis was conducted to compare efficacy of treatment modalities. Odds ratios (OR) and standardized mean difference (SMD) were reported. RESULTS: Thirty studies (4170 patients) met inclusion criteria. Triple therapy regimen (ICI + TKI + TACE) had the highest overall disease control rate (DCR) (87%, 95% CI 83-91), while ICI + radiotherapy had the highest objective response rate (ORR) (72%, 95% CI 54%-89%). Triple therapy had a higher DCR than ICI + TACE (OR 4.49, 95% CI 2.09-9.63), ICI + TKI (OR 3.08, 95% CI 1.63-5.82), and TKI + TACE (OR 2.90, 95% CI 1.61-5.20). Triple therapy demonstrated improved overall survival versus ICI + TKI (SMD 0.72, 95% CI 0.37-1.07) and TKI + TACE (SMD 1.13, 95% CI 0.70-1.48) (both p < 0.05). Triple therapy had a greater incidence of adverse events (AEs) compared with ICI + TKI (OR 0.59, 95% CI 0.29-0.91; p = 0.02), but no difference in AEs versus ICI + TACE or TKI + TACE (both p > 0.05). CONCLUSION: The combination of ICIs, TKIs and TACE demonstrated superior tumor response and survival and should be considered for select patients with advanced HCC.

Association of Racial and Economic Privilege on Postoperative Outcomes Among Medicare Beneficiaries.

INTRODUCTION: Social determinants of health can play an important role in patient health. Privilege is a right, benefit, advantage, or opportunity that can positively affect all social determinants of health. We sought to assess variations in the prevalence of privilege among patient populations and define the association of privilege on postoperative surgical outcomes. METHODS: Medicare beneficiaries who underwent elective coronary artery bypass grafting, abdominal aortic aneurysm repair, total hip arthroplasty, total knee arthroplasty, colectomy, and lung resection were identified. The Index of Concentration of Extremes (ICE), a validated metric of both social spatial polarization and privilege was calculated and merged with county-level data obtained from the American Community Survey. Textbook outcome (TO) was defined as absence of postoperative complications, extended length of stay, 90-day mortality, and 90-day readmission. Multivariable regression analysis was performed to assess the relationship between ICE and TO. RESULTS: Among 1,885,889 Medicare beneficiaries who met inclusion criteria, 655,980 (34.8%) individuals resided in areas with the highest privilege (i.e., White, high-income homogeneity), whereas 221,314 (11.7%) individuals resided in areas of the lowest privilege (i.e., Black, low-income homogeneity). The overall incidence of TO was 66.2% (n = 1,247,558). On multivariable regression, residence in the most advantaged neighbourhoods was associated with a lower chance of surgical complications (odds ratio [OR] 0.90, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.88-0.91), a prolonged length of stay (OR 0.81, 95% CI 0.79-82), 90-day readmission (OR 0.94, 95% CI 0.92-0.95), and 90-day mortality (OR 0.71, 95% CI 0.68-0.74) (all P < 0.001). Residence in the most privileged areas was associated with 19% increased odds of achieving TO (OR 1.19, 95% CI 1.18-1.21), as well as a 6% reduction in Medicare expenditures versus individuals in the least privileged counties (OR 0.94, 95% CI 0.94-0.94) (both P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Privilege, based on the ICE joint measure of racial/ethnic and economic spatial concentration, was strongly associated with the likelihood to achieve an "optimal" TO following surgery. As healthcare is a basic human right, privilege should not be associated with disparities in surgical care.

Postoperative morbidity after simultaneous versus staged resection of synchronous colorectal liver metastases: Impact of hepatic tumor burden.

BACKGROUND: We sought to characterize the risk of postoperative complications relative to the surgical approach and overall synchronous colorectal liver metastases tumor burden score. METHODS: Patients with synchronous colorectal liver metastases who underwent curative-intent resection between 2000 and 2020 were identified from an international multi-institutional database. Propensity score matching was employed to control for heterogeneity between the 2 groups. A virtual twins analysis was performed to identify potential subgroups of patients who might benefit more from staged versus simultaneous resection. RESULTS: Among 976 patients who underwent liver resection for synchronous colorectal liver metastases, 589 patients (60.3%) had a staged approach, whereas 387 (39.7%) patients underwent simultaneous resection of the primary tumor and synchronous colorectal liver metastases. After propensity score matching, 295 patients who underwent each surgical approach were analyzed. Overall, the incidence of postoperative complications was 34.1% (n = 201). Among patients with high tumor burden scores, the surgical approach was associated with a higher incidence of postoperative complications; in contrast, among patients with low or medium tumor burden scores, the likelihood of complications did not differ based on the surgical approach. Virtual twins analysis demonstrated that preoperative tumor burden score was important to identify which subgroup of patients benefited most from staged versus simultaneous resection. Simultaneous resection was associated with better outcomes among patients with a tumor burden score <9 and a node-negative right-sided primary tumor; in contrast, staged resection was associated with better outcomes among patients with node-positive left-sided primary tumors and higher tumor burden score. CONCLUSION: Among patients with high tumor burden scores, simultaneous resection of the primary tumor and liver metastases was associated with an increased incidence of postoperative complications.

A Prognostic Model To Predict Survival After Recurrence Among Patients With Recurrent Hepatocellular Carcinoma.

OBJECTIVE: We sought to develop and validate a preoperative model to predict survival after recurrence (SAR) in hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). BACKGROUND: Although HCC is characterized by recurrence as high as 60%, models to predict outcomes after recurrence remain relatively unexplored. METHODS: Patients who developed recurrent HCC between 2000 and 2020 were identified from an international multi-institutional database. Clinicopathologic data on primary disease and laboratory and radiologic imaging data on recurrent disease were collected. Multivariable Cox regression analysis and internal bootstrap validation (5000 repetitions) were used to develop and validate the SARScore. Optimal Survival Tree analysis was used to characterize SAR among patients treated with various treatment modalities. RESULTS: Among 497 patients who developed recurrent HCC, median SAR was 41.2 months (95% CI 38.1-52.0). The presence of cirrhosis, number of primary tumors, primary macrovascular invasion, primary R1 resection margin, AFP>400 ng/mL on the diagnosis of recurrent disease, radiologic extrahepatic recurrence, radiologic size and number of recurrent lesions, radiologic recurrent bilobar disease, and early recurrence (≤24 months) were included in the model. The SARScore successfully stratified 1-, 3- and 5-year SAR and demonstrated strong discriminatory ability (3-year AUC: 0.75, 95% CI 0.70-0.79). While a subset of patients benefitted from resection/ablation, Optimal Survival Tree analysis revealed that patients with high SARScore disease had the worst outcomes (5-year AUC; training: 0.79 vs. testing: 0.71). The SARScore model was made available online for ease of use and clinical applicability ( https://yutaka-endo.shinyapps.io/SARScore/ ). CONCLUSION: The SARScore demonstrated strong discriminatory ability and may be a clinically useful tool to help stratify risk and guide treatment for patients with recurrent HCC.

Is surgical treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma at high-volume centers worth the additional cost?

BACKGROUND: Case volume has been associated with improved outcomes for patients undergoing treatment for hepatocellular carcinoma, often with higher hospital expenditures. We sought to define the cost-effectiveness of hepatocellular carcinoma treatment at high-volume centers. METHODS: Patients diagnosed with hepatocellular carcinoma from 2013 to 2017 were identified from Medicare Standard Analytic Files. High-volume centers were defined as the top decile of facilities performing hepatectomies in a year. A multivariable generalized linear model with gamma distribution and a restricted mean survival time model were used to estimate costs and survival differences relative to high-volume center status. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was used to define the additional cost incurred for a 1-year incremental gain in survival. RESULTS: Among 13,666 patients, 8,467 (62.0%) were treated at high-volume centers. Median expenditure was higher ($19,148, interquartile range $15,280-$29,128) among patients treated at high-volume centers versus low-volume centers ($18,209, interquartile range $14,959-$29,752). Despite similar median length-of-stay (6 days, interquartile range 4-9), a slightly higher proportion of patients were discharged to home from high-volume centers (n = 4,903, 57.9%) versus low-volume centers (n = 2,868, 55.2%) (P = .002). A 0.14-year (95% confidence interval 0.06-0.22) (1 month and 3 weeks) survival benefit was associated with an incremental cost of $1,070 (95% confidence interval $749-$1,392) among patients undergoing surgery at high-volume centers. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for treatment at a high-volume center was $7,951 (95% confidence interval $4,236-$21,217) for an additional year of survival, which was below the cost-effective threshold of $21,217. CONCLUSION: Surgical care at high-volume centers offers the potential to deliver cancer care in a more cost-effective and value-based manner.

Liver transplantation access and outcomes: Impact of variations in liver-specific specialty care.

BACKGROUND: We sought to characterize the impact access to gastroenterologists/hepatologists has on liver transplantation listing, as well as time on the liver transplantation waitlist and post-transplant outcomes. METHODS: Liver transplantation registrants aged >18 years between January 1, 2004 and December 31, 2019 were identified from the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients Standard Analytic Files. The liver transplantation registration ratio was defined as the ratio of liver transplant waitlist registrations in a given county per 1,000 liver-related deaths. RESULTS: A total of 150,679 liver transplantation registrants were included. Access to liver transplantation centers and liver-specific specialty physicians varied markedly throughout the United States. Of note, the liver transplantation registration ratio was lower in counties with poor access to liver-specific care versus counties with adequate access (poor access 137.2, interquartile range 117.8-163.2 vs adequate access 157.6, interquartile range 127.3-192.2, P < .001). Among patients referred for liver transplantation, the cumulative incidence of waitlist mortality and post-transplant graft survival was comparable among patients with poor versus adequate access to liver-specific care (both P > .05). Among liver transplantation recipients living in areas with poor access, after controlling for recipient and donor characteristics, cold ischemic time, and model for end-stage liver disease score, the area deprivation index predicted graft survival (referent, low area deprivation index; medium area deprivation index, hazard ratio 1.52, 95% confidence interval 1.03-12.23; high area deprivation index, 1.45, 95% confidence interval 1.01-12.09, both P < .05). CONCLUSION: Poor access to liver-specific care was associated with a reduction in liver transplantation registration, and individuals residing in counties with high social deprivation had worse graft survival among patients living in counties with poor access to liver-specific care.

Mediators of racial disparities in postoperative outcomes among patients undergoing complex surgery.

BACKGROUND: This study sought to quantify the direct and indirect effects of race on postoperative outcomes after complex surgery. METHODS: Medicare patients who underwent abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) repair, coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG), lung resection or colectomy were identified (2014-2018). Generalized structural equation modelling was utilized to quantify the direct and indirect effects of race on Textbook outcome (TO). RESULTS: Among 930,033 patients, 46.8% of patients achieved a TO, with Black patients less likely to achieve a TO (referent: White; Black: OR 0.72, 95% CI 0.70-0.73). Notably, 32.3% of the disparities in TO were attributable to race itself, while 67.7% was explained by other factors. Specifically, residential segregation accounted for 39.4% of the lower TO rates among Black patients, while 21.0% was attributable to a high comorbidity burden. CONCLUSIONS: These data highlight the need to target structural racism as a policy priority to promote a more equitable healthcare system.

Optimal policy tree to assist in adjuvant therapy decision-making after resection of colorectal liver metastases.

BACKGROUND: Although systemic postoperative therapy after surgery for colorectal liver metastases is generally recommended, the benefit of adjuvant chemotherapy has been debated. We used machine learning to develop a decision tree and define which patients may benefit from adjuvant chemotherapy after hepatectomy for colorectal liver metastases. METHODS: Patients who underwent curative-intent resection for colorectal liver metastases between 2000 and 2020 were identified from an international multi-institutional database. An optimal policy tree analysis was used to determine the optimal assignment of the adjuvant chemotherapy to subgroups of patients for overall survival and recurrence-free survival. RESULTS: Among 1,358 patients who underwent curative-intent resection of colorectal liver metastases, 1,032 (76.0%) received adjuvant chemotherapy. After a median follow-up of 28.7 months (interquartile range 13.7-52.0), 5-year overall survival was 67.5%, and 3-year recurrence-free survival was 52.6%, respectively. Adjuvant chemotherapy was associated with better recurrence-free survival (3-year recurrence-free survival: adjuvant chemotherapy, 54.4% vs no adjuvant chemotherapy, 46.8%; P < .001) but no overall survival significant improvement (5-year overall survival: adjuvant chemotherapy, 68.1% vs no adjuvant chemotherapy, 65.7%; P = .15). Patients were randomly allocated into 2 cohorts (training data set, n = 679, testing data set, n = 679). The random forest model demonstrated good performance in predicting counterfactual probabilities of death and recurrence relative to receipt of adjuvant chemotherapy. According to the optimal policy tree, patient demographics, secondary tumor characteristics, and primary tumor characteristics defined the subpopulation that would benefit from adjuvant chemotherapy. CONCLUSION: A novel artificial intelligence methodology based on patient, primary tumor, and treatment characteristics may help clinicians tailor adjuvant chemotherapy recommendations after colorectal liver metastases resection.

Poor Access to Mental Healthcare is Associated with Worse Postoperative Outcomes Among Patients with Gastrointestinal Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Mental health has an important role in the care of cancer patients, and access to mental health services may be associated with improved outcomes. Thus, poor access to psychiatric services may contribute to suboptimal cancer treatment. We conducted a geospatial analysis to characterize psychiatrist distribution and assess the impact of mental healthcare shortages with surgical outcomes among patients with gastrointestinal cancer. METHODS: Medicare beneficiaries with mental illness diagnosed with complex gastrointestinal cancers between 2004 and 2016 were identified in the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)-Medicare registry. National Provider Identifier-registered psychiatrist locations were mapped and linked to SEER-Medicare records. Regional access to psychiatric services was assessed relative to textbook outcome, a composite assessment of postoperative complications, prolonged length of stay, 90-day readmission and mortality. RESULTS: Among 15,714 patients with mental illness and gastrointestinal cancer, 3937 were classified as having high access to psychiatric services while 3910 had low access. On multivariable logistic regression, areas with low access had higher risk of worse postoperative outcomes. Specifically, individuals residing in areas with low access had increased odds of prolonged length of stay (OR 1.11, 95%CI 1.01-1.22; p = 0.028) and 90-day readmission (OR 1.19, 95%CI 1.08-1.31; p < 0.001), as well as decreased odds of textbook outcome (OR 0.85, 95%CI 0.77-0.93; p < 0.001) and discharge to home (OR 0.89, 95%CI 0.80-0.99; p = 0.028). CONCLUSION: Patients with mental illness and lower access to psychiatric services had worse postoperative outcomes. Policymakers and providers should prioritize incorporating mental health screening and access to psychiatric services to address disparities among patients undergoing gastrointestinal surgery.

An attempt to establish and apply global benchmarks for liver resection of malignant hepatic tumors.

BACKGROUND: Benchmarking is a process of continuous self-evaluation and comparison with best-in-class hospitals to guide quality improvement initiatives. We sought to define global benchmarks relative to liver resection for malignancy and to assess their achievement in hospitals in the United States. METHODS: Patients who underwent curative-intent liver resection for hepatocellular carcinoma, intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma, or colorectal or neuroendocrine liver metastases between 2000 and 2019 were identified from an international multi-institutional database. Propensity score matching was conducted to balance baseline characteristics between open and minimally invasive approaches. Best-in-class hospitals were defined relative to the achievement rate of textbook oncologic outcomes and case volume. Benchmark values were established relative to best-in-class institutions. The achievement of benchmark values among hospitals in the National Cancer Database was then assessed. RESULTS: Among 2,624 patients treated at 20 centers, a majority underwent liver resection for hepatocellular carcinoma (n = 1,609, 61.3%), followed by colorectal liver metastases (n = 650, 24.8%), intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (n = 299, 11.4%), and neuroendocrine liver metastases (n = 66, 2.5%). Notably, 1,947 (74.2%) patients achieved a textbook oncologic outcome. After propensity score matching, 6 best-in-class hospitals with the highest textbook oncologic outcome rates (≥75.0%) were identified. Benchmark values were calculated for margin positivity (≤11.7%), 30-day readmission (≤4.1%), 30-day mortality (≤1.6%), minor postoperative complications (≤24.7%), severe complications (≤12.4%), and failure to achieve the textbook oncologic outcome (≤22.8%). Among the National Cancer Database hospitals, global benchmarks for margin positivity, 30-day readmission, 30-day mortality, severe complications, and textbook oncologic outcome failure were achieved in 62.9%, 27.1%, 12.1%, 7.1%, and 29.3% of centers, respectively. CONCLUSION: These global benchmarks may help identify hospitals that may benefit from quality improvement initiatives, aiming to improve patient safety and surgical oncologic outcomes.

Association of Minority-Serving Hospital Status with Post-Discharge Care Utilization and Expenditures in Gastrointestinal Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Disparities in utilization of post-discharge care and overall expenditures may relate to site of care and race/ethnicity. We sought to define the impact of minority-serving hospitals (MSHs) on postoperative outcomes, discharge disposition, and overall expenditures associated with an episode of surgical care. METHODS: Patients who underwent resection for esophageal, colon, rectal, pancreatic, and liver cancer were identified from Medicare Standard Analytic Files (2013-2017). A MSH was defined as the top decile of facilities treating minority patients (Black and/or Hispanic). The impact of MSH on outcomes of interest was analyzed using multivariable logistic regression and generalized linear regression models. Textbook outcome (TO) was defined as no postoperative complications, no prolonged length of stay, and no 90-day mortality or readmission. RESULTS: Among 113,263 patients, only a small subset of patients underwent surgery at MSHs (n = 4404, 3.9%). While 52.3% of patients achieved TO, rates were lower at MSHs (MSH: 47.2% vs. non-MSH: 52.5%; p < 0.001). On multivariable analysis, receiving care at an MSH was associated with not achieving TO (odds ratio [OR] 0.81, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.76-0.87) and concomitantly higher odds of additional post-discharge care (OR 1.10, 95% CI 1.01-1.20). Patients treated at an MSH also had higher median post-discharge expenditures (MSH: $8400, interquartile range [IQR] $2300-$22,100 vs. non-MSH: $7000, IQR $2200-$17,900; p = 0.002). In fact, MSHs remained associated with a 11.05% (9.78-12.33%) increase in index expenditures and a 16.68% (11.44-22.17%) increase in post-discharge expenditures. CONCLUSIONS: Patients undergoing surgery at a MSH were less likely to achieve a TO. Additionally, MSH status was associated with a higher likelihood of requiring post-discharge care and higher expenditures.

Liver transplantation for elderly patients with early-stage hepatocellular carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Although liver resection is a viable option for patients with early-stage hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), liver transplantation is the optimal treatment. The aim of this study was to identify characteristics of liver transplantation for elderly patients, and to assess the therapeutic benefit derived from liver transplantation over liver resection. METHODS: This was a population-based study of patients undergoing liver transplantation for HCC in the USA between 2004 and 2018. Data were retrieved from the National Cancer Database. Elderly patients were defined as individuals aged 70 years and over. Propensity score overlap weighting was used to control for heterogeneity between the liver resection and liver transplantation cohorts. RESULTS: Among 4909 liver transplant recipients, 215 patients (4.1 per cent) were classified as elderly. Among 5922 patients who underwent liver resection, 1907 (32.2 per cent) were elderly. Elderly patients who underwent liver transplantation did not have a higher hazard of dying during the first 5 years after transplantation than non-elderly recipients. After propensity score weighting, liver transplantation was associated with a lower risk of death than liver resection. Other factors associated with overall survival included diagnosis during 2016-2018, non-white/non-African American race, and α-fetoprotein level over 20 ng/dl. CONCLUSION: Elderly patients with HCC should not be excluded from liver transplantation based on age only. Transplantation leads to favourable survival compared with liver resection.

Modified integrated tumor burden, liver function, systemic inflammation, and tumor biology score to predict long-term outcomes after resection for hepatocellular carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: A preoperative predictive score for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) can help stratify patients who undergo resection relative to long-term outcomes and tailor treatment strategies. METHODS: Patients who underwent curative-intent hepatectomy for HCC between 2000 and 2020 were identified from an international multi-institutional database. A risk score (mFIBA) was developed using an Eastern cohort and then validated using a Western cohort. RESULTS: Among 957 patients, 443 and 514 patients were included from the Eastern and Western cohorts, respectively. On multivariable analysis, alpha-feto protein (HR1.97, 95%CI 1.42-2.72), neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (HR1.74, 95%CI 1.28-2.38), albumin-bilirubin grade (HR1.66, 95%CI 1.21-2.28), and imaging tumor burden score (HR1.25, 95%CI 1.12-1.40) were associated with OS. The c-index in the Eastern test and Western validation cohorts were 0.69 and 0.67, respectively. Notably, mFIBA score outperformed previous HCC staging systems. 5-year OS incrementally decreased with an increase in mFIBA. On multivariable Cox regression analysis, the mFIBA score was associated with worse OS (HR1.18, 95%CI 1.13-1.23) and higher risk of recurrence (HR1.16, 95%CI 1.11-1.20). An easy-to-use calculator of the mFIBA score was made available online (https://yutaka-endo.shinyapps.io/mFIBA_score/). DISCUSSION: The online mFIBA calculator may help surgeons with clinical decision-making to individualize perioperative treatment strategies for patients undergoing resection of HCC.

Impact of Community Privilege on Access to Care Among Patients Following Complex Cancer Surgery.

OBJECTIVE: We sought to define the impact of community privilege on variations in travel patterns and access to care at high-volume hospitals for complex surgical procedures. BACKGROUND: With increased emphasis on centralization of high-risk surgery, social determinants of health play a critical role in preventing equitable access to care. Privilege is a right, benefit, advantage, or opportunity that positively impacts all social determinants of health. METHODS: The California Office of State-wide Health Planning Database identified patients who underwent esophagectomy (ES), pneumonectomy (PN), pancreatectomy (PA), or proctectomy (PR) for a malignant diagnosis between 2012 and 2016 and was merged using ZIP codes with the Index of Concentration of Extremes, a validated metric of both spatial polarization and privilege obtained from the American Community Survey. Clustered multivariable regression was performed to assess the probability of undergoing care at a high-volume center, bypassing the nearest and high-volume center, and total real driving time and travel distance. RESULTS: Among 25,070 patients who underwent a complex oncologic operation (ES: n=1216, 4.9%; PN: n=13,247, 52.8%; PD: n=3559, 14.2%; PR: n=7048, 28.1%), 5019 (20.0%) individuals resided in areas with the highest privilege (i.e., White, high-income homogeneity), whereas 4994 (19.9%) individuals resided in areas of the lowest privilege (i.e., Black, low-income homogeneity). Median travel distance was 33.1 miles (interquartile range 14.4-72.2). Roughly, three-quarters of patients (overall: 74.8%, ES: 35.0%; PN: 74.3%; PD: 75.2%; PR: 82.2%) sought surgical care at a high-volume center. On multivariable regression, patients residing in the least advantaged communities were less likely to undergo surgery at a high-volume hospital (overall: odds ratio 0.65, 95% CI 0.52-0.81). Of note, individuals in the least privileged areas had longer travel distances (28.5 miles, 95% CI 21.2-35.8) to reach the destination facility, as well as over 70% greater odds of bypassing a high-volume hospital to undergo surgical care at a low-volume center (odds ratio 1.74, 95% CI 1.29-2.34) versus individuals living in the highest privileged areas. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Privilege had a marked effect on access to complex oncologic surgical care at high-volume centers. These data highlight the need to focus on privilege as a key social determinant of health that influences patient access to and utilization of health care resources.