A Novel Standard for Systematic Reporting of Neuroblastoma Surgery: The International Neuroblastoma Surgical Report Form (INSRF): A Joint Initiative by the Pediatric Oncological Cooperative Groups SIOPEN∗, COG∗∗, and GPOH∗∗∗.

OBJECTIVE: To create the first structured surgical report form for NBL with international consensus, to permit standardized documentation of all NBL-related surgical procedures and their outcomes. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: NBL, the most common extracranial solid malignant tumor in children, covers a wide spectrum of tumors with significant differences in anatomical localization, organ or vessel involvement, and tumor biology. Complete surgical resection of the primary tumor is an important part of NBL treatment, but maybe hazardous, prone to complications and its role in high-risk disease remains debated. Various surgical guidelines exist within the protocols of the different cooperative groups, although there is no standardized operative report form to document the surgical treatment of NBL. METHODS: After analyzing the treatment protocols of the SIOP Europe International Neuroblastoma Study Group, Children's Oncology Group, and Gesellschaft fuer Paediatrische Onkologie und Haematologie - German Association of Pediatric Oncology and Haematology pediatric cooperative groups, important variables were defined to completely describe surgical biopsy and resection of NBL and their outcomes. All variables were discussed within the Surgical Committees of SIOP Europe International Neuroblastoma Study Group, Children's Oncology Group, and Gesellschaft fuer Paediatrische Onkologie und Haematologie - German Association of Pediatric Oncology and Haematology. Thereafter, joint meetings were organized to obtain intercontinental consensus. RESULTS: The "International Neuroblastoma Surgical Report Form" provides a structured reporting tool for all NBL surgery, in every anatomical region, documenting all Image Defined Risk Factors and structures involved, with obligatory reporting of intraoperative and 30 day-postoperative complications. CONCLUSION: The International Neuroblastoma Surgical Report Form is the first universal form for the structured and uniform reporting of NBL-related surgical procedures and their outcomes, aiming to facilitate the postoperative communication, treatment planning and analysis of surgical treatment of NBL.

Registry-based randomized clinical trials in surgery: Working with ACS-NSQIP and the AHPBA to conduct pragmatic trials.

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) represent the gold standard for evidence in clinical medicine because of their ability to account for the effects of unmeasured confounders and selection bias by indication. However, their complexity and immense costs limit their application, and thus the availability of high-quality data to guide clinical care. Registry-based RCTs are a type of pragmatic trial that leverages existing registries as a platform for data collection, providing a low-cost alternative for randomized studies. Herein, we describe the tenets of registry RCTs and the development of the first AHPBA/ACS-NSQIP-based registry trial.

Impact of COVID-19 pandemic on cancer surgery: Patient's perspective.

BACKGROUND: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has impacted cancer care globally. The aim of this study is to analyze the impact of COVID-19 on cancer healthcare from the perspective of patients with cancer. METHODS: A cross-sectional survey was conducted between June 19, 2020, to August 7, 2020, using a questionnaire designed by patients awaiting cancer surgery. We examined the impact of COVID-19 on five domains (financial status, healthcare access, stress, anxiety, and depression) and their relationship with various patient-related variables. Factors likely to determine the influence of COVID-19 on patient care were analyzed. RESULTS: A significant adverse impact was noted in all five domains (p = < 0.05), with the maximal impact felt in the domain of financial status followed by healthcare access. Patients with income levels of INR < 35 K (adjusted odds ratio [AOR] = 1.61, p < 0.05), and 35K- 100 K (AOR = 1.96, p < 0.05), married patients (AOR = 3.30, p < 0.05), and rural patients (AOR = 2.82, p < 0.05) experienced the most adverse COVID-19-related impact. CONCLUSION: Delivering quality cancer care in low to middle-income countries is a challenge even in normal times. During this pandemic, deficiencies in this fragile healthcare delivery system were exacerbated. Identification of vulnerable groups of patients and strategic utilization of available resources becomes even more important during global catastrophes, such as the current COVID-19 pandemic. Further work is required in these avenues to not only address the current pandemic but also any potential future crises.

Opioid prescribing exceeds consumption following common surgical oncology procedures.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Surgical oncology patients are vulnerable to persistent opioid use. As such, we aim to compare opioid prescribing to opioid consumption for common surgical oncology procedures. METHODS: We prospectively identified patients undergoing common surgical oncology procedures at a single academic institution (August 2017-March 2018). Patients were contacted by telephone within 6 months of surgery and asked to report their opioid consumption and describe their discharge instructions and opioid handling practices. RESULTS: Of the 439 patients who were approached via telephone, 270 completed at least one survey portion. The median quantity of opioid prescribed was significantly larger than consumed following breast biopsy (5 vs. 2 tablets of 5 mg oxycodone, p < .001), lumpectomy (10 vs. 2 tablets of 5 mg oxycodone, p < .001), and mastectomy or wide local excision (20 tablets vs. 2 tablets of 5 mg oxycodone, p < .001). The majority of patients reported receiving education on taking opioids, but only 27% received instructions on proper disposal; 82% of prescriptions filled resulted in unused opioids, and only 11% of these patients safely disposed of them. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates that opioid prescribing exceeds consumption following common surgical oncology procedures, indicating the potential for reductions in prescribing.

Integrating the melanoma 31-gene expression profile test with surgical oncology practice within national guideline and staging recommendations.

Aim: Define changes in clinical management resulting from the use of the prognostic 31-gene expression profile (31-GEP) test for cutaneous melanoma in a surgical oncology practice. Patients & methods: Management plans for 112 consecutively tested patients with stage I-III melanoma were evaluated for duration and number of clinical visits, blood work and imaging. Results: 31-GEP high-risk (class 2; n = 46) patients received increased management compared with low-risk (class 1; n = 66) patients. Test results were most closely associated with follow-up and imaging. Of class 1 patients, 65% received surveillance intensity within guidelines for stage I-IIA patients; 98% of class 2 patients received surveillance intensity equal to stage IIB-IV patients. Conclusion: We suggest clinical follow-up and metastatic screening be adjusted according to 31-GEP test results.

Recommendations for head and neck surgical oncology practice in a setting of acute severe resource constraint during the COVID-19 pandemic: an international consensus.

The speed and scale of the global COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in unprecedented pressures on health services worldwide, requiring new methods of service delivery during the health crisis. In the setting of severe resource constraint and high risk of infection to patients and clinicians, there is an urgent need to identify consensus statements on head and neck surgical oncology practice. We completed a modified Delphi consensus process of three rounds with 40 international experts in head and neck cancer surgical, radiation, and medical oncology, representing 35 international professional societies and national clinical trial groups. Endorsed by 39 societies and professional bodies, these consensus practice recommendations aim to decrease inconsistency of practice, reduce uncertainty in care, and provide reassurance for clinicians worldwide for head and neck surgical oncology in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic and in the setting of acute severe resource constraint and high risk of infection to patients and staff.

Surgical Oncologists and the COVID-19 Pandemic: Guiding Cancer Patients Effectively through Turbulence and Change.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has posed extraordinary demands from patients, providers, and health care systems. Despite this, surgical oncologists must maintain focus on providing high-quality, empathetic care for the almost 2 million patients nationally who will be diagnosed with operable cancer this year. The focus of hospitals is transitioning from initial COVID-19 preparedness activities to a more sustained approach to cancer care. METHODS: Editorial Board members provided observations of the implications of the pandemic on providing care to surgical oncology patients. RESULTS: Strategies are presented that have allowed institutions to successfully prepare for cancer care during COVID-19, as well as other strategies that will help hospitals and surgical oncologists manage anticipated challenges in the near term. Perspectives are provided on: (1) maintaining a safe environment for surgical oncology care; (2) redirecting the multidisciplinary model to guide surgical decisions; (3) harnessing telemedicine to accommodate requisite physical distancing; (4) understanding interactions between SARS CoV-2 and cancer therapy; (5) considering the ethical impact of professional guidelines for surgery prioritization; and (6) advocating for our patients who require oncologic surgery in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic. CONCLUSIONS: Until an effective vaccine becomes available for widespread use, it is imperative that surgical oncologists remain focused on providing optimal care for our cancer patients while managing the demands that the COVID-19 pandemic will continue to impose on all of us.

COVID-19 Pandemic and Surgical Oncology: Preserving the Academic Mission.

BACKGROUND: The global pandemic of respiratory disease cause by the novel human coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) has caused untold suffering, loss of life and upheaval in society. The pandemic has lead to massive redirection of health care resources to treat the surge of COVID-19 patients, and enforcement of social distancing to reduce the rate of transmission. METHODS: Editorial Board members provided observations of the implications of the pandemic on academic surgical oncology. RESULTS: Delivery of health care to other populations including cancer patients has been significantly disrupted. The implications both short term and long term threaten preservation of the academic mission in medicine at large, and certainly in the field of surgical oncology. CONCLUSIONS: The effects on surgical oncology training, research and clinical trials are major.

When to Operate, Hesitate and Reintegrate: Society of Gynecologic Oncology Surgical Considerations during the COVID-19 Pandemic.

The COVID-19 pandemic has challenged our ability to provide timely surgical care for our patients. In response, the U.S. Surgeon General, the American College of Srugeons, and other surgical professional societies recommended postponing elective surgical procedures and proceeding cautiously with cancer procedures that may require significant hospital resources and expose vulnerable patients to the virus. These challenges have particularly distressing for women with a gynecologic cancer diagnosis and their providers. Currently, circumstances vary greatly by region and by hospital, depending on COVID-19 prevalence, case mix, hospital type, and available resources. Therefore, COVID-19-related modifications to surgical practice guidelines must be individualized. Special consideration is necessary to evaluate the appropriateness of procedural interventions, recognizing the significant resources and personnel they require. Additionally, the pandemic may occur in waves, with patient demand for surgery ebbing and flowing accordingly. Hospitals, cancer centers and providers must prepare themselves to meet this demand. The purpose of this white paper is to highlight all phases of gynecologic cancer surgical care during the COVID-19 pandemic and to illustrate when it is best to operate, to hestitate, and reintegrate surgery. Triage and prioritization of surgical cases, preoperative COVID-19 testing, peri-operative safety principles, and preparations for the post-COVID-19 peak and surgical reintegration are reviewed.

Development of a surgical oncology training curriculum for accreditation.

In 2011, the American Board of Surgery announced a new specialty board certification for Complex General Surgical Oncology. The development of a 2-year fellowship training curriculum was based on the core values of multidisciplinary care, surgical management of oncologic disease, education in basic research and clinical trial design, community outreach, patient counseling, and leadership in oncology. This article highlights the elements necessary for developing a fellowship training program in the context of these core values.

Comparing textbook outcomes among patients undergoing surgery for cancer at U. S. News & World Report ranked hospitals.

BACKGROUND: The objective of the current study was to define and compare rates of textbook outcomes (TO) among patients undergoing colorectal, lung, esophagus, liver, and pancreatic surgery for cancer at U.S. News & World Report (USNWR) ranked hospitals. METHODS: Medicare Inpatient Standard Analytic Files 2013-2015 were utilized to examine the relationship of TO and USNWR hospital ratings following surgery for colorectal, lung, esophageal, pancreatic, and liver cancer. TO was defined as no postoperative surgical complications, no prolonged length of hospital stay, no readmission within 90 days after discharge, and no postoperative mortality within 90 days after surgery. RESULTS: Among the 35,352 Medicare patients included in the cohort, 16,820 (47.6%) underwent surgery at honor roll hospitals, whereas 18 532 (52.4%) underwent surgery at non-honor roll hospitals. The overall proportion of patients who achieved TO was 50.1%. In examining the clinical outcomes of patients who underwent surgery, there was no difference in the odds of achieving TO at honor roll vs non-honor roll hospitals (colorectal: odds ratio [OR], 0.87; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.69-1.10; lung: OR, 1.07; 95% CI, 0.87-1.32; esophagus: OR, 1.44; 95% CI, 0.72-2.89; liver: OR, 1.27; 95% CI, 0.87-1.84; pancreas: OR, 1.04; 95% CI, 0.67-1.62). CONCLUSION AND RELEVANCE: Patients undergoing surgery for lung, esophageal, liver, pancreatic, and colorectal cancer had comparable rates of TO at honor roll vs non-honor roll hospitals. No linear association was observed between hospital position in the rank and postoperative outcomes such as TO indicating that patients should not overly focus on the exact position within USNWR ranked hospitals. These data highlight to patients and physicians that up to one-half of patients undergoing surgery for cancer should anticipate at least one adverse outcome.

Management of patients with ovarian cancer in the COVID-19 era.

At the beginning of 2020, coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) spreads worldwide. Patients with ovarian cancer should be considered at high-risk of developing severe morbidity related to COVID-19. Most of them are diagnosed in advanced stages of disease, and they are fragile. Here, we evaluated the major impact of COVID-19 on patients with ovarian cancer, discussing the effect of the outbreak on medical and surgical treatment.

European Society of Gynaecological Oncology quality indicators for surgical treatment of cervical cancer.

BACKGROUND: Optimizing and ensuring the quality of surgical care is essential to improve the management and outcome of patients with cervical cancer.To develop a list of quality indicators for surgical treatment of cervical cancer that can be used to audit and improve clinical practice. METHODS: Quality indicators were developed using a four-step evaluation process that included a systematic literature search to identify potential quality indicators, in-person meetings of an ad hoc group of international experts, an internal validation process, and external review by a large panel of European clinicians and patient representatives. RESULTS: Fifteen structural, process, and outcome indicators were selected. Using a structured format, each quality indicator has a description specifying what the indicator is measuring. Measurability specifications are also detailed to define how the indicator will be measured in practice. Each indicator has a target which gives practitioners and health administrators a quantitative basis for improving care and organizational processes. DISCUSSION: Implementation of institutional quality assurance programs can improve quality of care, even in high-volume centers. This set of quality indicators from the European Society of Gynaecological Cancer may be a major instrument to improve the quality of surgical treatment of cervical cancer.

Implementing successful systematic Patient Reported Outcome and Experience Measures (PROMs and PREMs) in robotic oncological surgery-The role of physicians.

Patient Reported Outcome and Experience Measures (PROMs and PREMs) play an increasingly important role in monitoring the quality of the oncological pathway. The aim of this study is to describe the case of five hospitals a year after the adoption of PROMs and PREMs for robotic oncological colorectal surgery in Tuscany and to investigate how the clinicians can impact the process of implementation and the efficacy of such measures. We used 14 months of data from the five robotic centers in Tuscany. Above all, the physician's personal motivation to improve the treatment of patients, the teamwork, and the possibility to use data for research purposes proved to be the essential factors for their engagement and the successful implementation of patient reported measures. Physicians play a key role in the adoption of systematic PROMs and PREMs. The higher their level of engagement, the higher the collection success, both in terms of number of patients enrolled and response rates. Moreover, the collection of patient reported measures may become part of physicians' daily practice and may lead to a change in their relationship and communication with patients, as clinicians accept to have their job reviewed and are not afraid to be evaluated by their patients.

Towards an evidence-informed value scale for surgical and radiation oncology: a multi-stakeholder perspective.

Surgery and radiotherapy, two locoregional cancer treatments, are essential to help improve cancer outcomes, control, and palliation. The continued evolution in treatment processes, techniques, and technologies-often at substantially increased costs-demands for direction on outcomes that are most valued by patients, and the evidence that is required before clinical adoption of these practices. Three recently introduced frameworks-the European Society for Medical Oncology Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale, the American Society of Clinical Oncology Value Framework, and the National Comprehensive Cancer Network Blocks-which all help define the value of oncology treatments, were appraised with a focus on their methods and definition of patient benefit. In this Review, we investigate the applicability of these frameworks to surgical and radiotherapy innovations. Findings show that these frameworks are not immediately transferable to locoregional cancer treatments. Moreover, the lack of emphasis on patient perspective and the reliance on traditional, trial-based endpoints such as survival, disease-free survival, and safety, calls for a new framework that includes real-world evidence with focus on the whole spectrum of patient-centred endpoints. Such an evidence-informed value scale would safeguard against the proliferation of low-value innovation while simultaneously increasing access to treatments that show significant improvements in the outcomes of cancer care.

Determining the Safety and Efficacy of Enhanced Recovery Protocols in Major Oncologic Surgery: An Institutional NSQIP Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Enhanced-recovery (ER) protocols are increasingly being utilized in surgical practice. Outside of colorectal surgery, however, their feasibility, safety, and efficacy in major oncologic surgery have not been proven. This study compared patient outcomes before and after multispecialty implementation of ER protocols at a large, comprehensive cancer center. METHODS: Surgical cases performed from 2011 to 2016 and captured by an institutional NSQIP database were reviewed. Following exclusion of outpatient and emergent surgeries, 2747 cases were included in the analyses. Cases were stratified by presence or absence of ER compliance, defined by preoperative patient education and electronic medical record order set-driven opioid-sparing analgesia, goal-directed fluid therapy, and early postoperative diet advancement and ambulation. RESULTS: Approximately half of patients were treated on ER protocols (46%) and the remaining on traditional postoperative (TP) protocols (54%). Treatment on an ER protocol was associated with decreased overall complication rates (20% vs. 33%, p < 0.0001), severe complication rates (7.4% vs. 10%, p = 0.010), and median hospital length of stay (4 vs. 5 days, p < 0.0001). There was no change in readmission rates (ER vs. TP, 8.6% vs. 9.0%, p = 0.701). Subanalyses of high magnitude cases and specialty-specific outcomes consistently demonstrated improved outcomes with ER protocol adherence, including decreased opioid use. CONCLUSIONS: This assessment of a large-scale ER implementation in multispecialty major oncologic surgery indicates its feasibility, safety, and efficacy. Future efforts should be directed toward defining the long-term oncologic benefits of these protocols.

Complex General Surgical Oncology Fellowship Applicants: Trends over Time and the Impact of Board Certification Eligibility.

BACKGROUND: Complex general surgical oncology (CGSO) fellowships recently obtained Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) accreditation and board certification eligibility. We aimed to characterize the applicant pool and identify factors predictive of matching into our program. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective review of CGSO fellowship applications to a major cancer center from 2008 to 2018. Data were analyzed for trends over time, including a comparison of pre- versus post-American Board of Surgery (ABS) certification eligibility. RESULTS: A total of 846 applications were reviewed. Most applicants (86.2%) trained in a US residency program; 58.4% performed ≥ 1 research year during residency; 29.6% had a dual degree. Fewer applicants (34.5%) were female, a trend which did not change over time. Post-ABS, applicants were more likely to complete ≥ 1 year between residency and fellowship (20.9% versus 13.2%, p = 0.003), to be in practice at the time of application (12.2% versus 6.6%, p = 0.005), and to reapply (5.5% versus 1.0%, p < 0.001). Post-ABS applicants listed more peer-reviewed publications (8 [interquartile range (IQR) 4, 15] versus 5 [IQR 2, 10]; p < 0.001). On multivariable analysis, factors associated with matching into our program included: US allopathic medical school graduation [odds ratio (OR) 4.6, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.8-11.7], Alpha Omega Alpha (AOA) Honor Medical Society distinction (OR 2.7, 95% CI 1.6-4.7), dual degree (OR 2.0, 95% CI 1.1-3.4), and performance of a clinical/research rotation at our institution (OR 4.9, 95% CI 2.2-10.7). CONCLUSIONS: After establishment of CGSO board certification eligibility, applicants were more likely to apply while in practice and to reapply. A number of factors, including having a dual degree and rotating at our institution, were associated with matriculation.

A Survey of the Complex General Surgical Oncology Fellowship Programs Regarding Applicant Selection and Rank.

BACKGROUND: There is significant demand for training in Complex General Surgical Oncology (CGSO) fellowships. Previous work has explored objective quantitative metrics of applicants that matriculated to CGSO fellowships; however, ambiguity remains concerning academic benchmarks and qualitative factors that impact matriculation. STUDY DESIGN: A web-based survey was sent to each ACGME/SSO-approved CGSO fellowship training program. The survey was comprised of 24 questions in various forms, including dichotomous, ranked, and five-point Likert scale questions. RESULTS: Twenty-nine of 30 program directors (97%) submitted complete survey responses, representing 64 of the 65 CGSO fellowship positions (99%) currently offered. Programs received a mean of 73 applications per cycle (range 50-125) and granted a mean of 26 interviews (range 2-45). Seventy-two percent of programs had an established benchmark for ABSITE score percentile before offering a candidate an interview, with 62% of those programs setting that benchmark above the 50th percentile. The majority of programs also had established benchmarks for quantity of first author publications (mean: 2.3) and all publications of any authorship (mean: 4.4). An applicant's interview was ranked as the most important factor in determining inclusion on the program's rank list. The ability to work as part of a team, interpersonal interaction/communication abilities, and operative skills were rated as most important applicant characteristics, whereas an applicant's personal statement was ranked as least important. CONCLUSIONS: After established academic benchmarks have been met, a multitude of factors influences ranking of applicants to the CGSO fellowship, most of which are assessed at the interview.