External Validation of a Survival Nomogram for Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer Using the National Cancer Database.

PURPOSE: Survival nomograms offer individualized predictions using a more diverse set of factors than traditional staging measures, including the American Joint Committee on Cancer Tumor Node Metastasis (AJCC TNM) Staging System. A nomogram predicting overall survival (OS) for resected, non-metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) has been previously derived from Asian patients. The present study aims to determine the nomogram's predictive capability in the US using the National Cancer Database (NCDB). METHODS: This was a retrospective review of adults with resected, non-metastatic NSCLC entered into the NCDB between 2004 and 2012. Concordance indices and calibration plots analyzed discrimination and calibration, respectively. Multivariate analysis was also used. RESULTS: A total of 57,313 patients were included in this study. The predominant histologies were adenocarcinoma (48.2%) and squamous cell carcinoma (31.3%), and patients were diagnosed with stage I-A (38.3%), stage I-B (22.7%), stage II-A (14.2%), stage II-B (11.5%), and stage III-A (13.3%). Median OS was 74 months. 1-, 3- and 5-year OS rates were 89.8% [95% confidence interval (CI) 89.5-90.0%], 71.1% (95% CI 70.7-71.6%), and 55.7% (95% CI 54.7-56.6%), respectively. The nomogram's concordance index (C-index) was 0.804 (95% CI 0.792-0.817). AJCC TNM staging demonstrated higher discrimination (C-index 0.833, 95% CI 0.821-0.840). CONCLUSIONS: The nomogram's individualized estimates accurately predicted survival in this patient collective, demonstrating higher discrimination in this population than in the developer's cohorts. However, the generalized survival estimates provided by traditional staging demonstrated superior predictive capability; therefore, AJCC TNM staging should remain the gold standard for the prognostication of resected NSCLC in the US.

Predictors of Utilization and Quality Assessment in Robotic Rectal Cancer Resection: A Review of the National Cancer Database.

Robotic surgery (RS) is a novel treatment for rectal cancer resection (RCR); however, this technology is not widely accessible. The objective of this study is to evaluate the utilization of RS in RCR compared with open and laparoscopic techniques and to assess the quality of resection. RCR from 2010 to 2012 were identified using the National Cancer Database and placed into categories: open, laparoscopic, and robotic. A total of 23,857 patients who received open, laparoscopic, and robotic RCR were included (n = 14,735 (61.8%); 7,185 (30.1%); 1,937 (8.1%), respectively). Patients over 70 had a lower likelihood of robotic RCR. Patients with insurance were 2 times more likely to have robotic RCR. Patients at an academic/research program were more likely to undergo RS compared with a community cancer program (OR 3.6, 95% CI [2.79, 4.78]; P < 0.0001). Length of stay (LOS) was longer in open (7.9 ± 7.1) versus laparoscopic (6.6 ± 6.3) or robotic (6.8 ± 6.4) RCR (P < 0.0001). Although there was an increased likelihood of positive surgical margins with open RCR (OR 1.3, 95% CI [1.09, 1.66]; P < 0.0001), there was no difference in robotic and laparoscopic techniques. Younger insured patients at academic/research affiliated hospitals have a higher likelihood of receiving robotic RCR. Compared with open RCR, robotic RCR have a lower likelihood of positive surgical margins and shorter LOS.