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.

The Pivotal Leadership of Doctors R. Lee Clark and Murray M. Copeland in Transforming the Commission on Cancer (1955-1965).

In September 1959, Dr. Clark was appointed as Chair and Dr. Murray M Copeland as Vice Chair of the Committee on Cancer. With their typical leadership style to improve the functions and value of organizations, they reorganized and revitalized the Committee on Cancer during the next 6 years. Thus, Drs. Clark and Copeland and the Committee members developed more uniform standards of cancer registries, implemented the American Joint Committee on Cancer Staging and End Results Reporting (with Dr. Copeland as Chair), published a revised Manual for Cancer Programs (which defined minimum standards requisite for approval of a cancer service), established a new regionalization program (with liaison surgeons from each state), and planned all the cancer educational programs for the College's annual Clinical Congress and Sectional Meetings. Importantly, Clark and Copeland led a 10-year strategic plan (called the "Program of the Sixties") to expand and revitalize the scale and scope of the Committee's activities and to reorganize the Committee structure by including liaison members from other physician, oncologic, and hospital organizations. As Dr. Clark completed his 5-year tenure as Committee Chair in October 1964, he formally recommended a reorganization of the Committee on Cancer to assume an even greater role in the cancer community as the Commission on Cancer. As the new Committee Chair, Dr. Copeland shepherded this recommendation to the ACS Board of Regents, which was approved and implemented in July 1965. The Regents emphasized that the functions and activities of the Committee on Cancer had become so complex and far reaching (under Clark's and Copeland's leadership) that its many subcommittees had already assumed duties of committee stature. Dr. Copeland thus became the first Chair of the Commission on Cancer until October 1965, when Dr. John Cline became Chair. For his contributions to the cancer field and to the College of Surgeons, Dr. Clark received their Distinguished Service Award in October 1969 "for his life-long devotion to the treatment of patients and to research in cancer, for notable service to this College, particularly as Chairman of the Cancer Commission from 1960 to 1964."

Initial Assessment of the Effect of ProvenCare on Lung Cancer Surgical Quality.

BACKGROUND: ProvenCare is a joint initiative of the American College of Surgeons Commission on Cancer, Geisinger, and The Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS) to standardize evidence-based practices in the delivery of surgical lung cancer care. This study compares outcomes of ProvenCare patients with the STS Database. METHODS: Best practice elements were agreed on through expert consensus meetings. ProvenCare elements were used to direct care. Compliance was monitored while clinical outcomes were collected within the STS General Thoracic Surgery Database (GTSD). ProvenCare patient outcomes were compared with outcomes in all other STS GTSD patients. Univariable and multivariable logistic regression models compared morbidity and mortality. RESULTS: A total of 2026 patients at 23 ProvenCare hospitals were compared with 71 565 control patients at 311 hospitals from 2010 to 2016. ProvenCare patients were more likely to receive guideline-recommended staging evaluations and more likely to have mediastinal staging performed during resection (63.4% vs 49.4%; P < .001). There was no difference in 30-day mortality (1.4% vs 1.3% lobectomy [P = .84]; 3.4% vs 2.0% all other resections [P = .054]) or STS indicator complications (10.8% vs 9.9% lobectomy [P = .21]; 9.2% vs 9.4% all other resections [P = .92]). When controlling for patient-level clinical and demographic risk factors, the likelihood of perioperative morbidity and mortality was not significantly different (odds ratio [OR], 1.07 [95% CI, 0.77-1.47] lobectomy; OR, 0.97 [95% CI, 0.62-1.50] all other resections). CONCLUSIONS: Variability in preoperative evaluation of patients with lung cancer represents an opportunity to improve quality of care. ProvenCare increased use of guideline-recommended preoperative processes, which may improve cancer outcomes and survival, without resulting in differences in short-term surgical outcomes.

Trends in Regionalization of Care and Mortality For Patients Treated With Radical Cystectomy.

BACKGROUND: Regionalization to higher volume centers has been proposed as a mechanism to improve short-term outcomes following complex surgery. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to assess trends in regionalization and mortality for patients undergoing radical cystectomy (RC). RESEARCH DESIGN: An observational study of patients receiving RC in the United States from 2004 to 2013. SUBJECTS: Data for patients receiving RC were extracted from the National Cancer Database. MEASURES: The primary exposure was hospital volume; low-volume hospitals (LVH) included those with <5 RC/year and high-volume hospitals (HVH) were those with ≥30 RC/year. Trends in the volume were assessed, as were 30- and 90-day mortality. Cochrane-Armitage tests were performed for volume, and propensity score-weighted proportional hazard regression was used to assess mortality. RESULTS: A total of 47,028 RC were performed in 1162 hospitals from 2004 to 2013. The proportion of RC at LVH declined from 29% to 17% (P<0.01), whereas that of HVH increased from 16% to 33% (P<0.01). Unadjusted 30- (P=0.02) and 90-day (P<0.001) mortality decreased, and the absolute decrease was greatest at LVH (4.8% vs. 2.6%, P=0.03), whereas rates for HVH remained stable (1.9% vs. 1.4%, P=0.34). Following risk-adjustment, relative to treatment at HVH, treatment at LVH was associated with increased 30-day (hazard ratio: 1.66, 95% CI: 1.53-1.80) and 90-day mortality (hazard ratio: 1.37, 95% confidence interval: 1.30-1.44). CONCLUSIONS: Regionalization of RC to HVH was observed from 2004 to 2013. Treatment at LVH was associated with 66% and 33% relative increases in hazard of death at 30 and 90 days, respectively. These findings support the selective referral of complex cases to higher volume centers.

Incident Cases Captured in the National Cancer Database Compared with Those in U.S. Population Based Central Cancer Registries in 2012-2014.

BACKGROUND: The National Cancer Database (NCDB) is a hospital-based cancer registry that includes diagnostic, staging, treatment, and outcomes data for newly diagnosed cancer patients in the United States. The NCDB data include 31 million records for patients diagnosed between 1985-2015. A Participant User File based on a subset of these data has been available to researchers at facilities accredited by the Commission on Cancer since 2010. This study aimed to compare the number of incident cancer cases in the NCDB with a national population cancer registry. METHODS: Incident cancer cases in the NCDB in 2012-2014 were compared with the number of cancer cases in the United States Cancer Statistics data for the 2012-2014 diagnosis years. Comparisons were made by primary site and other factors. RESULTS: In 2012-2014, the NCDB captured 72% of the cancer cases in the United States, which was slightly higher than the 67% and 69% reported respectively in two prior assessments. Among the top 10 major cancer sites, the highest coverage (80%) was found for breast cancer, and the lowest was found for melanoma of the skin (52%) and prostate (58%). Colon, bladder, and kidney and renal pelvis cancers had relatively high coverage of 71%, 70% and 78%, respectively, whereas lung and bronchus had slightly lower coverage (65%). CONCLUSIONS: The NCDB coverage of U.S. cancer cases has remained relatively high (72%), but differences remain by cancer site and other factors that should be taken into account by users of the NCDB data.

Lack of Cancer Recurrence Data in Large Databases: A National Survey of Hospital Cancer Registries.

BACKGROUND: Cancer recurrence information is not routinely collected by the US cancer registries. Prior research suggests hospital characteristics, staff qualifications, and chart access may be contributing factors but this has not been explored nationally. This study aimed to understand issues underlying poor collection of recurrence information and to identify targets for improvement. METHODS: A survey was sent to Commission on Cancer hospitals to investigate reasons for variations in recurrence data collection, examine resources allocated, and assess coding variability. Descriptive and multivariate analyses were performed. RESULTS: Eight hundred and forty-five of 1417 surveys to Commission on Cancer hospitals were analyzed. Sixty-nine percent reported annually examining charts for recurrence ("investigating" hospitals). They more likely had experienced registrars (91% versus 84%, P < 0.05), integrated electronic medical records (75% versus 68%, P < 0.05) and chart access to in-network hospitals (80% versus 73%, P < 0.05). Thirty-seven percent reported ability to follow-up using medical records on <50% of patients. Reasons for noncollection included inability to accurately collect (37%), limited resources (44%), and low priority (18%). Odds of being an investigating hospital increased with the percentage of patients who could be followed up with medical records (90%-100% OR = 6.72). There were minimal differences among hospitals in registry caseload and resources. 79.5% reported that without prior recurrence documentation, they would code the patient as not having a recurrence, 8.8% would change all recurrence variables to "unknown," and 7.2% would leave them blank. CONCLUSIONS: Those tasked with collecting recurrence information report significant barriers concerning data access, data quality, adequate resources, and coding variability. A unified effort is needed to improve collection.

Impact of Breast Center Accreditation on Compliance with Breast Quality Performance Measures at Commission on Cancer-Accredited Centers.

PURPOSE: This study was designed to determine whether accreditation by the National Accreditation Program for Breast Centers (NAPBC) is associated with improved performance on six breast quality measures pertaining to adjuvant treatment, needle/core biopsy, and breast conservation therapy rates at Commission on Cancer (CoC) centers. METHODS: National Cancer Database 2015 data were retrospectively reviewed to compare patients treated at CoC centers with and without NAPBC accreditation for compliance on six breast cancer quality measures. Mixed effects modeling determined performance on the quality measures adjusting for patient, tumor, and facility factors. RESULTS: Of 1308 CoC facilities, 484 (37%) were NAPBC-accredited and 111,547 patients (48%) were treated at NAPBC centers. More than 80% of patients treated at both NAPBC and non-NAPBC centers received care in compliance with breast quality measures. NAPBC centers achieved significantly higher performance on four of the five quality measures than non-NAPBC centers at the patient level and on five of six measures at the facility level. For two measures, needle/core biopsy before surgical treatment of breast cancer and breast conservation therapy rate of 50%, NAPBC centers were twice as likely as non-NAPBC centers to perform at the level expected by the CoC (respectively odds ratio [OR] 1.96, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.85-2.08, p < 0.0001; and OR 2.05, 95% CI 1.94-2.15, p < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: While NAPBC accreditation at CoC centers is associated with higher performance on breast quality measures, the majority of patients at all centers receive guideline-concordant care. Future studies will determine whether higher performance translates into improved oncologic and patient-reported outcomes.

Assessment of hospital-level adjusted breast cancer sentinel lymph node positivity rates.

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES: Proficiency of performing sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) for breast cancer varies among hospitals and may be reflected in the hospital's SLNB positivity rate. Our objectives were to examine whether hospital characteristics are associated with variation in SLNB positivity rates and whether hospitals with lower-than-expected SLNB positivity rates have worse patient survival. METHODS: Using the National Cancer Data Base, stage I to III breast cancer patients were identified (2004-2012). Hospital-level SLNB positivity rates were adjusted for tumor and patient factors. Hospitals were divided into terciles of SLNB positivity rates (lower-, higher-, as-expected). Hospital characteristics and survival were examined across terciles. RESULTS: Of 438 610 SLNB patients (from 1357 hospitals), 78 104 had one or more positive SLN (21.3%). Hospitals in the low and high terciles were more likely to be low volume (low: RRR, 4.40; 95% CI, 2.89-6.57; P < 0.001; and high: RRR, 1.79; 95% CI, 1.21-2.64; P < 0.001) compared to hospitals with as-expected (middle tercile) SLNB positivity rates. Stage I patients at low- and high-tercile hospitals had statistically worse survival. CONCLUSIONS: There is a wide variation in hospital SLNB positivity rates. Hospitals with lower- or higher-than-expected SLNB positivity rates were associated with survival differences. Hospital SLNB positivity rates may be a novel 'process measure' to report to hospitals for internal quality assessment.

Treatment delays from transfers of care and their impact on breast cancer quality measures.

PURPOSE: Despite delays between diagnosis and surgery adversely affecting survival, patients frequently transfer their breast cancer care between institutions. This study was performed to assess the prevalence and effect of such transfers of care (TsOC) on the time to surgery, and its impact on current time-dependent breast cancer quality metrics at Commission on Cancer (CoC) and National Accreditation Program for Breast Centers (NAPBC)-accredited institutions. METHODS: Patients having non-metastatic invasive breast cancer diagnosed between 2006 and 2015 at CoC and NAPBC centers ("reporting facilities") in the National Cancer Database were reviewed. TsOC refer to transferring into or out of a reporting facility between diagnosis and surgery. RESULTS: Among 622,793 patients, 36.6% of patients transferred care. TsOC add 7.3, 7.8, 8.7, and 9.8 days in time to surgery, chemotherapy, radiotherapy, and endocrine therapy, respectively (p's < 0.0001). On multivariable analysis, the odds of surgery occurring > 90 days from diagnosis were greatest for patients undergoing unilateral or bilateral mastectomy, Black or Hispanic patients, and those having TsOC (ORs > 1.73, p's < 0.0001). TsOC increase the odds of non-compliance, per patient, for chemotherapy, radiotherapy and endocrine therapy time-dependent measures by 65.4%, 25.6%, and 56.5%, respectively (p < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: TsOC for newly diagnosed breast cancers to or from an accredited facility result in delays in time to surgery which can affect compliance with time-dependent quality measures. Facilities frequently receiving transferred patients may be most adversely affected. Although non-compliance with these quality measures is low, institutions and accrediting bodies should be aware of these associations in order to comply with time-dependent standards.

More Frequent Surveillance Following Lung Cancer Resection Is Not Associated With Improved Survival: A Nationally Representative Cohort Study.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate whether an association exists between the intensity of surveillance following surgical resection for non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and survival. BACKGROUND: Surveillance guidelines following surgical resection of NSCLC vary widely and are based on expert opinion and limited evidence. METHODS: A Special Study of the National Cancer Database randomly selected stage I to III NSCLC patients for data reabstraction. For patients diagnosed between 2006 and 2007 and followed for 5 years through 2012, registrars documented all postsurgical imaging with indication (routine surveillance, new symptoms), recurrence, new primary cancers, and survival, with 5-year follow-up. Patients were placed into surveillance groups according to existing guidelines (3-month, 6-month, annual). Overall survival and survival after recurrence were analyzed using Cox Proportional Hazards Models. RESULTS: A total of 4463 patients were surveilled with computed tomography scans; these patients were grouped based on time from surgery to first surveillance. Groups were similar with respect to age, sex, comorbidities, surgical procedure, and histology. Higher-stage patients received more surveillance. More frequent surveillance was not associated with longer risk-adjusted overall survival [hazard ratio for 6-month: 1.16 (0.99, 1.36) and annual: 1.06 (0.86-1.31) vs 3-month; P value 0.14]. More frequent imaging was also not associated with postrecurrence survival [hazard ratio: 1.02/month since imaging (0.99-1.04); P value 0.43]. CONCLUSIONS: These nationally representative data provide evidence that more frequent postsurgical surveillance is not associated with improved survival. As the number of lung cancer survivors increases over the next decade, surveillance is an increasingly important major health care concern and expenditure.

Association Between Intensity of Posttreatment Surveillance Testing and Detection of Recurrence in Patients With Colorectal Cancer.

Importance: Surveillance testing is performed after primary treatment for colorectal cancer (CRC), but it is unclear if the intensity of testing decreases time to detection of recurrence or affects patient survival. Objective: To determine if intensity of posttreatment surveillance is associated with time to detection of CRC recurrence, rate of recurrence, resection for recurrence, or overall survival. Design, Setting, and Participants: A retrospective cohort study of patient data abstracted from the medical record as part of a Commission on Cancer Special Study merged with records from the National Cancer Database. A random sample of patients (n=8529) diagnosed with stage I, II, or III CRC treated at a Commission on Cancer-accredited facilities (2006-2007) with follow-up through December 31, 2014. Exposures: Intensity of imaging and carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) surveillance testing derived empirically at the facility level using the observed to expected ratio for surveillance testing during a 3-year observation period. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was time to detection of CRC recurrence; secondary outcomes included rates of resection for recurrent disease and overall survival. Results: A total of 8529 patients (49% men; median age, 67 years) at 1175 facilities underwent surveillance imaging and CEA testing within 3 years after their initial CRC treatment. The cohort was distributed by stage as follows: stage I, 25.0%; stage II, 35.2%; and stage III, 39.8%. Patients treated at high-intensity facilities-4188 patients (49.1%) for imaging and 4136 (48.5%) for CEA testing-underwent a mean of 2.9 (95% CI, 2.8-2.9) imaging scans and a mean of 4.3 (95% CI, 4.2-4.4) CEA tests. Patients treated at low-intensity facilities-4341 patients (50.8%) for imaging and 4393 (51.5%) for CEA testing-underwent a mean of 1.6 (95% CI, 1.6-1.7) imaging scans and a mean of 1.6 (95% CI, 1.6-1.7) CEA tests. Imaging and CEA surveillance intensity were not associated with a significant difference in time to detection of cancer recurrence. The median time to detection of recurrence was 15.1 months (IQR, 8.2-26.3) for patients treated at facilities with high-intensity imaging surveillance and 16.0 months (IQR, 7.9-27.2) with low-intensity imaging surveillance (difference, -0.95 months; 95% CI, -2.59 to 0.68; HR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.90-1.09) and was 15.9 months (IQR, 8.5-27.5) for patients treated at facilities with high-intensity CEA testing and 15.3 months (IQR, 7.9-25.7) with low-intensity CEA testing (difference, 0.59 months; 95% CI, -1.33 to 2.51; HR, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.90-1.11). No significant difference existed in rates of resection for cancer recurrence (HR for imaging, 1.22; 95% CI, 0.99-1.51 and HR for CEA testing, 1.12; 95% CI, 0.91-1.39) or overall survival (HR for imaging, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.94-1.08 and HR for CEA testing, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.89-1.03) among patients treated at facilities with high- vs low-intensity imaging or CEA testing surveillance. Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients treated for stage I, II, or III CRC, there was no significant association between surveillance intensity and detection of recurrence. Trial Registration: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT02217865.

Evaluating the Current Status of Rectal Cancer Care in the US: Where We Stand at the Start of the Commission on Cancer's National Accreditation Program for Rectal Cancer.

BACKGROUND: In an effort to improve the quality of rectal cancer care in the US, the American College of Surgeons Commission on Cancer has developed the National Accreditation Program for Rectal Cancer (NAPRC). We aimed to describe the current status of rectal cancer care before implementation of the NAPRC. STUDY DESIGN: The 2011-2014 National Cancer Database was queried for non-metastatic rectal cancer patients who underwent proctectomy. The NAPRC process measures evaluated included clinical staging completion, treatment starting fewer than 60 days from diagnosis, CEA level drawn before treatment, tumor regression grading, and margin assessment. The NAPRC performance measures included negative proximal, distal, and circumferential margins, and ≥12 lymph nodes harvested during resection. RESULTS: There were 39,068 patients identified (mean age 62 years, 61.6% male sex). In >85% of patients, clinical staging was completed, treatment was started within 60 days, and all tumor margins were assessed. Pretreatment CEA level (64.6% complete) was the process measure most often omitted. However, completion of all included process measures occurred in only 28.1% of patients. All pathologic margins were negative in 79.8% of patients and 73.2% of specimens reported ≥12 lymph nodes. Overall, 56.3% of patients achieved all performance measures. Patients treated at high-volume centers (>30 cases/year) had higher odds of meeting all performance measures (odds ratio 1.42; p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Overall, very few patients achieved all of the proposed quality measures for rectal cancer care. It will be important to re-evaluate these data after the implementation of the NAPRC.

Use of Breast Imaging After Treatment for Locoregional Breast Cancer (AFT-01).

BACKGROUND: Annual mammography is recommended after breast cancer treatment. However, studies suggest its under-utilization for Medicare patients. Utilization in the broader population is unknown, as is the role of breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). Understanding factors associated with imaging use is critical to improvement of adherence to recommendations. METHODS: A random sample of 9835 eligible patients receiving surgery for stages 2 and 3 breast cancer from 2006 to 2007 was selected from the National Cancer Database for primary data collection. Imaging and recurrence data were abstracted from patients 90 days after surgery to 5 years after diagnosis. Factors associated with lack of imaging were assessed using multivariable repeated measures logistic regression with generalized estimating equations. Patients were censored for death, bilateral mastectomy, new cancer, and recurrence. RESULTS: Of 9835 patients, 9622, 8702, 8021, and 7457 patients were eligible for imaging at surveillance years 1 through 4 respectively. Annual receipt of breast imaging declined from year 1 (69.5%) to year 4 (61.0%), and breast MRI rates decreased from 12.5 to 5.8%. Lack of imaging was associated with age 80 years or older and age younger than 50 years, black race, public or no insurance versus private insurance, greater comorbidity, larger node-positive hormone receptor-negative tumor, excision alone or mastectomy, and no chemotherapy (p < 0.005). Receipt of breast MRI was associated with age younger than 50 years, white race, higher education, private insurance, mastectomy, chemotherapy, care at a teaching/research facility, and MRI 12 months before diagnosis (p < 0.05). CONCLUSION: Under-utilization of mammography after breast cancer treatment is associated with sociodemographic and clinical factors, not institutional characteristics. Effective interventions are needed to increase surveillance mammography for at-risk populations. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02171078.

Risk of Synchronous Distant Recurrence at Time of Locoregional Recurrence in Patients With Stage II and III Breast Cancer (AFT-01).

Purpose National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines recommend systemic staging imaging at the time of locoregional breast cancer recurrence. Limited data support this recommendation. We determined the rate of synchronous distant recurrence at the time of locoregional recurrence in high-risk patients and identified clinical factors associated with an increased risk of synchronous metastases. Methods A stage-stratified random sample of 11,046 patients with stage II to III breast cancer in 2006 to 2007 was selected from the National Cancer Database for participation in a Commission on Cancer special study. From medical record abstraction of imaging and recurrence data, we identified patients who experienced locoregional recurrence within 5 years of diagnosis. Synchronous distant metastases (within 30 days of locoregional recurrence) were determined. We used multivariable logistic regression to identify factors associated with synchronous metastases. Results Four percent experienced locoregional recurrence (n = 445). Synchronous distant metastases were identified in 27% (n = 120). Initial presenting stage ( P = .03), locoregional recurrence type ( P = .01), and insurance status ( P = .03) were associated with synchronous distant metastases. The proportion of synchronous metastases was highest for women with lymph node (35%), postmastectomy chest wall (30%), and in-breast (15%) recurrence; 54% received systemic staging imaging within 30 days of a locoregional recurrence. Conclusion These findings support current recommendations for systemic imaging in the setting of locoregional recurrence, particularly for patients with lymph node or chest wall recurrences. Because most patients with isolated locoregional recurrence will be recommended locoregional treatment, early identification of distant metastases through routine systemic imaging may spare them treatments unlikely to extend their survival.

Assessing the relative influence of hospital and surgeon volume on short-term mortality after radical cystectomy.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the relationship between surgeon (SV) and hospital volume (HV) on mortality after radical cystectomy (RC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: We queried the National Cancer Database (NCDB) for adult patients undergoing RC between 2010 and 2013. We calculated average volume for each surgeon and hospital. Using propensity-scored weights for combined volume groups with a proportional hazards regression model, we compared the associations between HV and SV with 90-day survival after RC. RESULTS: A total of 19 346 RCs were performed at 927 hospitals by 2 927 surgeons in the period 2010-2013. The median (interquartile range) HV and SV were 12.3 (5.0-35.5) and 4.3 (1.3-12.3) cases, respectively. For HV, 90-day unadjusted mortality was 8.5% in centres with <5 cases/year (95% confidence interval [CI] 7.7-9.3) and 5.6% in those with >30 cases/year (95% CI 5.0-6.2). For SV, 90-day mortality was 8.1% for surgeons with <5 cases/year (95% CI 7.6-8.6) and 4.0% for those with >30 cases/year (95% CI 2.8-5.2; all P < 0.05). The 30-day mortality rate was lowest for the combined HV-SV groups with HV >30, ranging from 1.6% to 2.1%. CONCLUSIONS: In hospitals reporting to the NCDB, volume was associated with improved mortality after RC. These associations appear to be driven by hospital- rather than surgeon-level effects. An elevated SV had a beneficial effect on mortality at the highest-volume hospitals. These findings inform efforts to regionalize complex surgical care and improve quality at community and safety net hospitals.

Using the National Cancer Database for Outcomes Research: A Review.

Importance: The National Cancer Database (NCDB), a joint quality improvement initiative of the American College of Surgeons Commission on Cancer and the American Cancer Society, has created a shared research file that has changed the study of cancer care in the United States. A thorough understanding of the nuances, strengths, and limitations of the database by both readers and investigators is of critical importance. This review describes the use of the NCDB to study cancer care, with a focus on the advantages of using the database and important considerations that affect the interpretation of NCDB studies. Observations: The NCDB is one of the largest cancer registries in the world and has rapidly become one of the most commonly used data resources to study the care of cancer in the United States. The NCDB paints a comprehensive picture of cancer care, including a number of less commonly available details that enable subtle nuances of treatment to be studied. On the other hand, several potentially important patient and treatment attributes are not collected in the NCDB, which may affect the extent to which comparisons can be adjusted. Finally, the NCDB has undergone several significant changes during the past decade that may affect its completeness and the types of available data. Conclusions and Relevance: The NCDB offers a critically important perspective on cancer care in the United States. To capitalize on its strengths and adjust for its limitations, investigators and their audiences should familiarize themselves with the advantages and shortcomings of the NCDB, as well as its evolution over time.

The Eighth Edition AJCC Cancer Staging Manual: Continuing to build a bridge from a population-based to a more "personalized" approach to cancer staging.

The American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) staging manual has become the benchmark for classifying patients with cancer, defining prognosis, and determining the best treatment approaches. Many view the primary role of the tumor, lymph node, metastasis (TNM) system as that of a standardized classification system for evaluating cancer at a population level in terms of the extent of disease, both at initial presentation and after surgical treatment, and the overall impact of improvements in cancer treatment. The rapid evolution of knowledge in cancer biology and the discovery and validation of biologic factors that predict cancer outcome and response to treatment with better accuracy have led some cancer experts to question the utility of a TNM-based approach in clinical care at an individualized patient level. In the Eighth Edition of the AJCC Cancer Staging Manual, the goal of including relevant, nonanatomic (including molecular) factors has been foremost, although changes are made only when there is strong evidence for inclusion. The editorial board viewed this iteration as a proactive effort to continue to build the important bridge from a "population-based" to a more "personalized" approach to patient classification, one that forms the conceptual framework and foundation of cancer staging in the era of precision molecular oncology. The AJCC promulgates best staging practices through each new edition in an effort to provide cancer care providers with a powerful, knowledge-based resource for the battle against cancer. In this commentary, the authors highlight the overall organizational and structural changes as well as "what's new" in the Eighth Edition. It is hoped that this information will provide the reader with a better understanding of the rationale behind the aggregate proposed changes and the exciting developments in the upcoming edition. CA Cancer J Clin 2017;67:93-99. © 2017 American Cancer Society.

Patient characteristics associated with undergoing cancer operations at low-volume hospitals.

BACKGROUND: Although strong volume-outcome relationships exist for many cancer operations, patients continue to undergo these operations at low-volume hospitals. METHODS: Patients were identified from the National Cancer Data Base from 2010-2013 who underwent resection for bladder, breast, esophagus, lung, pancreas, rectum, and stomach cancers. Low-volume hospitals were defined as those in the bottom quartile by surgical volume for each cancer type separately. Logistic regression models were constructed to assess patient-level factors associated with undergoing cancer surgery at low-volume hospitals across cancer types while controlling for tumor characteristics. Survival outcomes (30- and 90-day mortality; overall survival) were also assessed. RESULTS: Low volume thresholds were 4, 84, 4, 18, 8, 7, and 4 resections per year for bladder, breast, esophagus, lung, pancreas, rectum, and stomach cancers, respectively, resulting in 772 (74.1%), 828 (57.5%), 664 (77.5%), 830 (64.7%), 716 (79.2%), 898 (65.1%), and 888 (68.5%) hospitals classified as low-volume hospitals, respectively. For all the cancers examined, patients were more likely to undergo operation at low-volume hospitals if they traveled shorter distances (home to surgical facility), resided in rural locations, or had not received neoadjuvant therapy. Other patient and tumor factors were not associated consistently with undergoing operation at low-volume hospitals. Patients who went to low-volume hospitals had poorer outcomes among the studied cancers. CONCLUSION: Patients continue to undergo operation at low-volume hospitals due to where they live and how far they have to travel. Regionalization policy initiatives will remain challenging in this population. Efforts should therefore continue to emphasize quality improvement locally at each facility caring for patients with cancer.