Overall Volume of Upper Gastrointestinal Surgery Positively Impacts Gastric Cancer Outcomes at Centers with Low Gastrectomy Volume.

BACKGROUND: The relationship between hospital volume and surgical mortality is well documented. However, complete centralization of surgical care is not always feasible. The present study investigates how overall volume of upper gastrointestinal surgery at hospitals influences patient outcomes following resection for gastric adenocarcinoma. PATIENTS AND METHODS: National Cancer Database (2010-2019) patients with pathologic stage 1-3 gastric adenocarcinoma who underwent gastrectomy were identified. Three cohorts were created: low-volume hospitals (LVH) for both gastrectomy and overall upper gastrointestinal operations, mixed-volume hospital (MVH) for low-volume gastrectomy but high-volume overall upper gastrointestinal operations, and high-volume gastrectomy hospitals (HVH). Chi-squared tests were used to analyze sociodemographic factors and surgical outcomes and Kaplan-Meier method for survival analysis. RESULTS: In total, 26,398 patients were identified (LVH: 20,099; MVH: 539; HVH: 5,760). The 5-year survival was equivalent between MVH and HVH for all stages of disease (MVH: 56.0%, HVH 55.6%; p = 0.9866) and when stratified into early (MVH: 69.9%, HVH: 65.4%; p = 0.1998) and late stages (MVH: 24.7%, HVH: 32.0%; p = 0.1480), while LVH had worse survival. After matching patients, postoperative outcomes were worse for LVH, but there was no difference between MVH and HVH in terms of adequate lymphadenectomy, margin status, readmission rates, and 90-day mortality rates. CONCLUSIONS: Despite lower gastrectomy volume for cancer, postoperative gastrectomy outcomes at centers that perform a high number of upper gastrointestinal cancer surgeries were similar to hospitals with high gastrectomy volume. These hospitals offer a blueprint for providing equivalent outcomes to high volume centers while enhancing availability of quality cancer care.

Trends in access to minimally invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy for pancreatic cancers.

BACKGROUND: Minimally invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy (MIPD), including robotic (RPD) and laparoscopy (LPD), is becoming more frequently employed in the management of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC), though the majority of operations are still performed via open approach (OPD). Access to technologic advances often neglect the underserved. Whether disparities in access to MIPD exist, remain unclear. METHODS: The National Cancer Database (NCDB) was queried (2010-2020) for patients who underwent pancreatoduodenectomy for PDAC. Cochran-Armitage tests assessed for trends over time. Social determinants of health (SDH) were compared between approaches. Multinomial logistic models identified predictors of MIPD. RESULTS: Of 16,468 patients, 80.03 % underwent OPD and 19.97 % underwent MIPD (22.60 % robotic; 77.40 % laparoscopic). Black race negatively predicted LPD (vs white (OR 0.822; 95 % CI 0.701-0.964)). Predictors of RPD included Medicare/other government insurance (vs uninsured or Medicaid (OR 1.660; 95 % CI 1.123-2.454)) and private insurance (vs uninsured or Medicaid (OR 1.597; 95 % CI 1.090-2.340)). Early (2010-2014) vs late (2015-2020) diagnosis, stratified by race, demonstrated an increase in Non-White patients undergoing OPD (13.15 % vs 14.63 %; p = 0.016), but not LPD (11.41 % vs 13.57 %;p = 0.125) or RPD (14.15 % vs 15.23 %; p = 0.774). CONCLUSION: SDH predict surgical approach more than clinical stage, facility type, or comorbidity status. Disparities in race and insurance coverage are different between surgical approaches.

The Evaluation of Gallstone Disease in the Year Before Pancreatic Cancer Diagnosis.

INTRODUCTION: Patients with pancreatic cancer can present with a variety of insidious abdominal symptoms, complicating initial diagnosis. Early symptoms of pancreatic cancer often mirror those associated with gallstone disease, which has been demonstrated to be a risk factor for this malignancy. This study aims to compare the incidence of gallstone disease in the year before diagnosis of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) as compared to the general population, and evaluate the association of gallstone disease with stage at diagnosis and surgical intervention. METHODS: Patients with PDAC were identified from SEER-Medicare (2008-2015). The incidence of gallstone disease (defined as cholelithiasis, cholecystitis and/or cholecystectomy) in the 1 year before cancer diagnosis was compared to the annual incidence in an age-matched, sex-matched, and race-matched noncancer Medicare cohort. RESULTS: Among 14,654 patients with PDAC, 4.4% had gallstone disease in the year before cancer diagnosis. Among the noncancer controls (n = 14,654), 1.9% had gallstone disease. Both cohorts had similar age, sex and race distributions. PDAC patients with gallstone disease were diagnosed at an earlier stage (stage 0/I-II, 45.8% versus 38.1%, P < 0.0001) and a higher proportion underwent resection (22.7% versus 17.4%, P = 0.0004) compared to patients without gallstone disease. CONCLUSIONS: In the year before PDAC diagnosis, patients present with gallstone disease more often than the general population. Improving follow-up care and differential diagnosis strategies may help combat the high mortality rate in PDAC by providing an opportunity for earlier stage of diagnosis and earlier intervention.

Combined High-Volume Common Complex Cancer Operations Safeguard Long-Term Survival in a Low-Volume Individual Cancer Operation Setting.

BACKGROUND: We previously demonstrated the importance of combined complex surgery volume on short-term outcomes of high-risk cancer operations. This study investigates the impact of combined common complex cancer operation volume on long-term outcomes at hospitals with low cancer-specific operation volumes. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A retrospective cohort of National Cancer Data Base (2004-2019) patients undergoing surgery for hepatocellular carcinoma, non-small cell lung cancers, or pancreatic, gastric, esophageal, or rectal adenocarcinomas was utilized. Three separate cohorts were established: low-volume hospitals (LVH), mixed-volume hospitals (MVH) with low-volume individual cancer operations and high-volume total complex operations, and high-volume hospitals (HVH). Survival analyses were performed for overall, early-, and late-stage disease. RESULTS: The 5 year survival was significantly better at MVH and HVH compared with LVH, for all operations except late-stage hepatectomy (HVH survival > LVH and MVH). The 5 year survival probability was similar between MVH and HVH for operations on late-stage cancers. Early and overall survival for gastrectomy, esophagectomy, and proctectomy were equivalent between MVH and HVH. While early and overall survival for pancreatectomy were benefited by HVH over MVH, the opposite was true for lobectomy/pneumonectomy, which were benefited by MVH over HVH; however, none of these differences were likely to have an effect clinically. Only hepatectomy patients demonstrated statistical and clinical significance in 5 year survival at HVH compared with MVH for overall survival. CONCLUSIONS: MVH hospitals performing sufficient complex common cancer operations demonstrate similar long-term survival for specific high-risk cancer operations to HVH. MVH provide an adjunctive model to the centralization of complex cancer surgery, while maintaining quality and access.

Axillary Lymph Node Dissection is Associated with Improved Survival Among Men with Invasive Breast Cancer and Sentinel Node Metastasis.

BACKGROUND: Male breast cancer (MBC) is rare, and management is extrapolated from trials that enroll only women. It is unclear whether contemporary axillary management based on data from landmark trials in women may also apply to men with breast cancer. This study aimed to compare survival in men with positive sentinel lymph nodes after sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) alone versus complete axillary dissection (ALND). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Using the National Cancer Database, men with clinically node-negative, T1 and T2 breast cancer and 1-2 positive sentinel nodes who underwent SLNB or ALND were identified from 2010 to 2020. Both 1:1 propensity score matching and multivariate regression were used to identify patient and disease variables associated with ALND versus SLNB. Survival between ALND and SLNB were compared using Kaplan-Meier methods. RESULTS: A total of 1203 patients were identified: 61.1% underwent SLNB alone and 38.9% underwent ALND. Treatment in academic centers (36.1 vs. 27.7%; p < 0.0001), 2 positive lymph nodes on SLNB (32.9 vs. 17.3%, p < 0.0001) and receipt or recommendation of chemotherapy (66.5 vs. 52.2%, p < 0.0001) were associated with higher likelihood of ALND. After propensity score matching, ALND was associated with superior survival compared with SLNB (5-year overall survival of 83.8 vs. 76.0%; log-rank p = 0.0104). DISCUSSION: The results of this study suggest that among patients with early-stage MBC with limited sentinel lymph node metastasis, ALND is associated with superior survival compared with SLNB alone. These findings indicate that it may be inappropriate to extrapolate the results of the ACOSOG Z0011 and EORTC AMAROS trials to MBC.

A Paradigm Shifts: Neoadjuvant Therapy for Clearly Resectable Pancreatic Cancer.

Over the past decade, neoadjuvant therapy has become the standard of care for patients with borderline resectable and locally advanced pancreatic cancer. The surgical community remains divided regarding the value of neoadjuvant therapy for patients who present with clearly resectable disease. Thus far, randomized controlled trials comparing neoadjuvant therapy with conventional upfront surgical strategies for patients with clearly resectable pancreatic cancer have been plagued by poor accrual, and are often underpowered. Nonetheless, meta-analyses of the results of these trials suggest that neoadjuvant therapy can be offered as an acceptable standard of care for patients with clearly resectable pancreatic cancer. Previous trials used neoadjuvant gemcitabine, but more recent studies have demonstrated superior survival for patients who were able to tolerate neoadjuvant FOLFIRINOX (leucovorin, 5-fluorouracil, irinotecan hydrochloride, and oxaliplatin). The increased utilization of FOLFIRINOX may be shifting the treatment paradigm in favor of neoadjuvant therapy among patients with clearly resectable disease. Randomized controlled trials assessing the value of neoadjuvant FOLFIRINOX in clearly resectable pancreatic cancer, which are expected to provide more conclusive recommendations, are still ongoing. This review outlines the rationale, considerations, and current level of evidence for the use of neoadjuvant therapy in patients with clearly resectable pancreatic cancer.

A nationwide propensity score analysis comparing ablation and resection for hepatocellular carcinoma.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Studies have reported ambiguous results regarding the efficacy of ablation for early-stage hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Our study compared outcomes of ablation versus resection for HCC ≤50 mm to identify tumor sizes that would most benefit from ablation in terms of long-term survival. METHODS: The National Cancer Database was queried for patients with stage I and II HCC ≤50 mm who underwent ablation or resection (2004-2018). Three cohorts were created based on tumor size: ≤20, 21-30, and 31-50 mm. A propensity score-matched survival analysis was performed using the Kaplan-Meier method. RESULTS: In total, 36.47% (n = 4263) and 63.53% (n = 7425) of patients underwent resection and ablation, respectively. After matching, resection was associated with a significant survival benefit compared to ablation (3-year survival: 78.13% vs. 67.64%; p < 0.0001) in patients with HCC of ≤20 mm. The impact of resection was even more striking among patients with HCC of 21-30 mm (3-year survival: 77.88% vs. 60.53%; p < 0.0001) and 31-50 mm (3-year survival: 67.21% vs. 48.55%; p < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: While resection offers a survival benefit over ablation in the treatment of early-stage HCC ≤50 mm, ablation may provide a feasible bridging strategy in patients awaiting transplantation.

Disparities in the Receipt of Recommended Curative Treatment for Patients with Early-Stage Hepatocellular Carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: In early-stage hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), the receipt of recommended care is critical for long-term survival. Unfortunately, not all patients decide to undergo therapy. We sought to identify factors associated with the decision to decline recommended intervention among patients with early-stage HCC. METHODS: The National Cancer Database was queried for patients diagnosed with clinical stages I and II HCC (2004-2017). Cohorts were created based on the receipt or decline of recommended interventions-hepatectomy, liver transplantation, and ablation. Multivariable logistic regression identified predictors for declining intervention, and propensity score analysis was used to calculate the respective odds. Survival analysis was performed using the Kaplan-Meier method. RESULTS: Of 20,863 patients, 856 (4.1%) declined intervention. Patients who were documented as having declined intervention were more often Black (vs. other: OR, 1.3; 95% CI, 1.1-1.6; p = 0.0038), had Medicaid or no insurance (vs. Private, Medicare, or other government insurance): OR, 1.9; 95% CI, 1.6-2.3; p < 0.0001), lived in a low-income area (vs. other: OR, 1.4; 95% CI, 1.2-1.7; p < 0.0001), and received treatment at a non-academic center (vs. academic: OR, 2.1; 95% CI, 1.9-2.5; p < 0.0001). Patients who declined recommended interventions had worse survival compared to those who received treatment (22.9 vs. 59.2 months; p < 0.0001, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Racial and socioeconomic disparities persist in the decision to undergo recommended treatment. Underutilization of treatment acts as a barrier to addressing racial and socioeconomic disparities in early-stage HCC outcomes.

A propensity score matching analysis: Impact of senior resident versus fellow participation on outcomes of complex surgical oncology.

BACKGROUND: Teaching hospitals that train both general surgery residents and fellows in complex general surgical oncology have become more common. This study investigates whether participation of a senior resident versus a fellow has an impact on outcomes of patients undergoing complex cancer surgery. METHODS: Patients who underwent esophagectomy, gastrectomy, hepatectomy, or pancreatectomy between 2007 and 2012 with assistance from a senior resident (post-graduate years 4-5) or a fellow (post-graduate years 6-8) were identified from the ACS NSQIP. Based on age, sex, body mass index, ASA classification, diagnosis of diabetes mellitus, and smoking status, propensity-scores were created for odds of undergoing the operation assisted by a fellow. Patients were matched 1:1 based on propensity score. Postoperative outcomes including risk of major complication were compared after matching. RESULTS: In total, 6934 esophagectomies, 13,152 gastrectomies, 4927 hepatectomies, and 8040 pancreatectomies were performed with assistance of a senior resident or fellow. After matching, overall rates of major complications were equivalent across all four anatomic locations between cases performed with the participation of a senior resident versus a surgical fellow: esophagectomy (37.0%% vs 31.6%, p = 0.10), gastrectomy (22.6% vs 22.3%, p = 0.93), hepatectomy (15.8% v 16.0%, p = 0.91), and pancreatectomy (23.9% vs 25.2%, p = 0.48). Operative time was shorter for gastrectomy (212 vs. 232 min; p = 0.004) involving a resident compared to a fellow, but comparable for esophagectomy (330 vs. 336 min; p = 0.41), hepatectomy (217 vs. 219 min; p = 0.85), and pancreatectomy (320 vs. 330 min; p = 0.43). CONCLUSIONS: Senior resident participation in complex cancer operations does not appear to negatively impact operative time or postoperative outcomes. Future research is needed to further assess this domain of surgical practice and education, particularly with regard to case selection and operative complexity.

The Persistence of Poverty and its Impact on Cancer Diagnosis, Treatment and Survival.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the effect of persistent poverty on the diagnosis, surgical resection and survival of patients with non-small cell lung (NSCLC), breast, and colorectal cancer. BACKGROUND: Disparities in cancer outcomes exist in counties with high levels of poverty, defined as ≥20% of residents below the federal poverty level. Despite this well-established association, little is known about how the duration of poverty impacts cancer care and outcomes. One measure of poverty duration is that of "persistent poverty," defined as counties in high poverty since 1980. METHODS: In this retrospective cohort study, patients with NSCLC, breast and colorectal cancer were identified from SEER (2012-2016). County-level poverty was obtained from the American Community Survey (1980-2015). Outcomes included advanced stage at diagnosis (stage III-IV), resection of localized disease (stage I-II) and cancer-specific survival. Hierarchical generalized linear models and accelerated failure time models with Weibull distribution were used, adjusted for patient-level covariates and region. RESULTS: Overall, 522,514 patients were identified, of which 5.1% were in persistent poverty. Patients in persistent poverty were more likely to present with advanced disease [NSCLC odds ratio (OR): 1.12, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.06-1.18; breast OR: 1.09, 95% CI: 1.02-1.17; colorectal OR: 1.00, 95% CI: 0.94-1.06], less likely to undergo surgery (NSCLC OR: 0.81, 95% CI: 0.73-0.90; breast OR: 0.82, 95% CI: 0.72-0.94; colorectal OR: 0.84, 95% CI: 0.70-1.00) and had increased cancer-specific mortality (NSCLC HR: 1.09, 95% CI: 1.06-1.13; breast HR: 1.18, 95% CI: 1.05-1.32; colorectal HR: 1.09, 95% CI: 1.03-1.17) as compared with those without poverty. These differences were observed to a lesser magnitude in counties with current, but not persistent, poverty and disappeared in counties no longer in poverty. CONCLUSIONS: The duration of poverty has a direct impact on cancer-specific outcomes, with the greatest effect seen in persistent poverty and resolution of disparities when a county is no longer in poverty. Policy focused on directing resources to communities in persistent poverty may represent a possible strategy to reduce disparities in cancer care and outcomes.

COVID-19 Did Not Stop the Rising Tide: Trends in Case Volume Logged by Surgical Residents.

INTRODUCTION: The coronavirus pandemic has profoundly impacted all facets of surgical care, including surgical residency training. The objective of this study was to assess the operative experience and overall case volume of surgery residents before and during the pandemic. METHODS: Using data from the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education annual operative log reports, operative volume for 2015 to 2021 graduates of Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education -accredited general, orthopedic, neuro- and plastic surgery residency programs was analyzed using nonparametric Kendall-tau correlation analysis. The period before the pandemic was defined as AY14-15 to AY18-19, and the pandemic period was defined as AY19-20 to AY20-21. RESULTS: Operative data for 8556 general, 5113 orthopedic, 736 plastic, and 1278 neurosurgery residency graduates were included. Between 2015 and 2021, total case volume increased significantly for general surgery graduates (Kendall's tau-b: 0.905, p = 0.007), orthopedic surgery graduates (Kendall's tau-b: 1.000, p = 0.003), neurosurgery graduates (Kendall's tau-b: 0.905, p = 0.007), and plastic surgery graduates (Kendall's tau-b: 0.810, p = 0.016). Across all specialties, the mean total number of cases performed by residents graduating during the pandemic was higher than among residents graduating before the pandemic, though no formal significance testing was performed. Among general surgery residents, the number of cases performed as surgeon chief among residents graduating in AY19-20 decreased for the first time in 5 years, though the overall volume remained higher than the prior year, and returned to prepandemic trends in AY20-21. CONCLUSIONS: Over the past 7 years, the case volume of surgical residents steadily increased. Surgical trainees who graduated during the coronavirus pandemic have equal or greater total operative experience compared to trainees who graduated prior to the pandemic.

Surveillance Patterns for Hepatocellular Carcinoma among Screening-Eligible Patients in the Medicare Population.

INTRODUCTION: Routine screening plays a critical role in the diagnosis of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), but not all patients undergo consistent surveillance. This study aims to evaluate surveillance patterns and their association with diagnosis stage and survival among Medicare patients at risk for HCC. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with HCC and guideline-based screening eligibility who underwent imaging with ultrasound or abdominal magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in the 2 years prior to diagnosis were identified from SEER-Medicare (2008-2015). Three surveillance cohorts were created: diagnostic (imaging only within 3 months prior), intermittent (imaging only once within 2 years prior, excluding diagnostic), and routine (at least two imaging encounters within 2 years prior, excluding diagnostic). Multivariable logistic regression was used to predict early-stage diagnosis (stage I-II), and 5-year survival was evaluated using the accelerated failure time method with Weibull distribution. RESULTS: Among 2261 eligible patients, 26.1% were classified as diagnostic, 15.8% as intermittent, and 58.1% as routine surveillance. The median age was 74 years (IQR 70-78 years). The majority of patients had a preexisting cirrhosis diagnosis (81.5%). Routine and intermittent, compared with diagnostic, surveillance were predictive of early-stage disease (routine: OR 2.05, 95% CI 1.64-2.56; intermittent: OR 1.43, 95% CI 1.07-1.90). Patients who underwent routine surveillance had significantly lower risk of mortality (HR 0.84, 95% CI 0.75-0.94) compared with the diagnostic group. CONCLUSIONS: A large proportion of screening-eligible patients do not undergo routine surveillance, which is associated with late-stage diagnosis and higher risk of mortality. These findings demonstrate the impact of timely and consistent healthcare access and can guide interventions for promoting surveillance among these patients.

Impact of Patient Primary Language upon Immediate Breast Reconstruction After Mastectomy.

BACKGROUND: Preoperative decision-making in patients who speak a primary language other than English is understudied. We investigated whether patient primary language is associated with differences in immediate breast reconstruction (IBR) after mastectomy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This retrospective observational study analyzed female patients undergoing mastectomy in the New Jersey State Inpatient Database (2009-2014). The primary outcome was the odds of IBR with a prespecified subanalysis of autologous tissue-based IBR. We used multivariable logistic regression and hierarchical generalized linear mixed models to control for patient characteristics and nesting within hospitals. RESULTS: Of 13,846 discharges, 12,924 (93.3%) specified English as the patient's primary language, while 922 (6.7%) specified a language other than English. Among English-speaking patients, 6178 (47.8%) underwent IBR, including 2310 (17.9%) autologous reconstructions. Among patients with a primary language other than English, 339 (36.8%) underwent IBR, including 93 (10.1%) autologous reconstructions. Unadjusted results showed reduced odds of IBR overall [odds ratio (OR) 0.64, 95% CI 0.55-0.73], and autologous reconstruction specifically (OR 0.52, 95% CI 0.41-0.64) among patients with a primary language other than English. After adjustment for patient factors, this difference persisted among the autologous subgroup (OR 0.64, 95% CI 0.51-0.80) but not for IBR overall. A hierarchical model incorporating both patient characteristics and hospital-level effects continued to show a difference among the autologous subgroup (OR 0.75, 95% CI 0.58-0.97). CONCLUSIONS: Primary language other than English was an independent risk factor for lower odds of autologous IBR after adjustments for patient and hospital effects. Focused efforts should be made to ensure that patients who speak a primary language other than English have access to high-quality shared decision-making for postmastectomy IBR.

The Effect of Hospital Versus Surgeon Volume on Short-Term Patient Outcomes After Pancreaticoduodenectomy: a SEER-Medicare Analysis.

BACKGROUND: The volume-outcome relationship has been well-established for pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD). It remains unclear if this is primarily driven by hospital volume or individual surgeon experience. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to determine the relationship of hospital and surgeon volume on short-term outcomes of patients with pancreatic adenocarcinoma undergoing PD. METHODS: Patients >65 years of age who underwent PD for pancreatic adenocarcinoma were identified from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)-Medicare database (2008-2015). Analyses were stratified by hospital volume and then surgeon volume, creating four volume cohorts: low-low (low hospital, low surgeon), low-high (low hospital, high surgeon), high-low (high hospital, low surgeon), high-high (high hospital, high surgeon). Propensity scores were created for the odds of undergoing surgery with high-volume surgeons. Following matching, multivariable analysis was used to assess the impact of surgeon volume on outcomes within each hospital volume cohort. RESULTS: In total, 2450 patients were identified: 54.3% were treated at high-volume hospitals (27.0% low-volume surgeons, 73.0% high-volume surgeons) and 45.7% were treated at low-volume hospitals (76.9% low-volume surgeons, 23.1% high-volume surgeons). On matched multivariable analysis, there were no significant differences in the risk of major complications, 90-day mortality, and 30-day readmission based on surgeon volume within the low and high hospital volume cohorts. CONCLUSION: Compared with surgeon volume, hospital volume is a more significant factor in predicting short-term outcomes after PD. This suggests that a focus on resources and care pathways, in combination with volume metrics, is more likely to achieve high-quality care for patients undergoing PD across all hospitals.