Association between COVID-19 diagnosis and postoperative outcomes in sleeve gastrectomy and Roux-en-Y gastric bypass: A national cohort study.

BACKGROUND: We seek to determine the association between COVID-19 diagnosis and postoperative outcomes following bariatric surgery. METHODS: Using the Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery Accreditation Quality Improvement Project (MBSAQIP) database, patients undergoing sleeve gastrectomy and gastric bypass without a COVID-19 diagnosis were 2:1 propensity-score matched to those with COVID-19 infection pre or postoperatively. RESULTS: 1369 (0.74 â€‹%) and 1331 (0.72 â€‹%) patients had a COVID-19 diagnosis within 14 days prior to or 30 days after their operation, respectively. Patients with preoperative COVID-19 infection had equivalent outcomes to COVID-19 negative patients (all p â€‹> â€‹0.05). Postoperative COVID-19 diagnosis was associated with worse outcomes including increased risk of anastomotic/staple line leak (1.1 â€‹% vs 0.1 â€‹%, p â€‹< â€‹0.001), postoperative pneumonia (2.9 â€‹% vs 0.1 â€‹%, p â€‹< â€‹0.001), and 30-day reoperation (2.1 â€‹% vs 0.9 â€‹%, p â€‹= â€‹0.002). CONCLUSIONS: Postoperative diagnosis of COVID-19 after bariatric surgery is associated with worse outcomes; however, it is safe to perform these procedures on patients recently convalesced from COVID-19 infection.

Fragmented care in localized pancreatic cancer: Is commission on cancer accreditation associated with improved overall survival?

BACKGROUND: Prior studies of fragmentation of care in pancreatic cancer have not adjusted for indicators of hospital quality such as Commission on Cancer accreditation. The effect of fragmentation of care has not been well defined. METHODS: We queried the National Cancer Database to identify patients undergoing pancreaticoduodenectomy and distal pancreatectomy with perioperative systemic therapy for clinical stages I-III pancreatic cancer between 2006 and 2019. Patients who received systemic therapy at a center different than the center performing surgery were categorized as having fragmentation of care. Patients having fragmentation of care were further categorized on the basis of whether (fragmentation of care Commission on Cancer) or not (fragmentation of care non-Commission on Cancer) systemic therapy was administered at a facility accredited by the Commission on Cancer. RESULTS: A total of 11,732 patients met inclusion criteria; 5,668 (48.3%) underwent fragmentation of care, and 3,426 (29.2%) fragmentation of care non-Commission on Cancer. Patients undergoing fragmentation of care non-Commission on Cancer were less likely to receive neoadjuvant systemic therapy than those undergoing fragmentation of care Commission on Cancer or non-fragmented care (27.7% vs 40.1% vs 36.8%, P < .001). On Cox analysis, advanced age, comorbid disease, node-positive disease, and facility type were associated with risk of overall survival. Fragmentation of care was not (adjusted hazard ratio = 0.99, 95% confidence interval [0.94-1.06], P = .8). On Kaplan-Meier analysis, there were no significant differences in 5-year overall survival between treatment cohorts. CONCLUSION: In patients undergoing fragmentation of care for localized pancreatic cancer, those treated with systemic therapy in Commission on Cancer accredited facilities are more likely to be given neoadjuvant therapy but demonstrate no significant improvement in survival relative to those undergoing non-fragmented care or those undergoing fragmentation of care but receiving systemic therapy in nonaccredited facilities.

Locally Advanced Adenocarcinoma of the Esophagus: Is Esophagectomy Associated with Improved Overall Survival?

BACKGROUND: Esophagectomy in locally advanced esophageal adenocarcinoma is challenging and carries risk. The value of esophagectomy in locally advanced esophageal adenocarcinoma is not well-defined. STUDY DESIGN: The National Cancer Database was used to identify patients with cT4 esophageal adenocarcinoma from 2004 to 2020. Multivariable regression was used to identify factors associated with use of esophagectomy. Cox modeling was used to identify factors associated with all-cause mortality. Patients undergoing esophagectomy were 1:1 propensity score-matched to patients treated nonsurgically. Kaplan-Meier analysis was used to compare 5-year overall survival (OS). RESULTS: A total of 3,703 patients met inclusion criteria. Of those, 541 (15%) underwent esophagectomy, and 3,162 (85%) did not. Age 65 years or less (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 1.69, 95% CI 1.33 to 2.14), White race (aOR 2.98, 95% CI 2.24 to 3.96), treatment in academic centers (aOR 1.64, 95% CI 1.33 to 2.02), private insurance (aOR 1.88, 95% CI 1.50 to 2.36), and tumors less than 6 cm (aOR 1.86, 95% CI 1.44 to 2.40) were associated with use of esophagectomy. Government of lack of insurance (hazard ratio [HR] 1.23, 95% CI 1.12 to 1.35), income <$46,000 (HR 1.11, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.20), treatment in nonacademic centers (HR 1.16, 95% CI 1.07 to 1.25), Charlson-Deyo Comorbidity Index 1 or more (HR 1.22, 95% CI 1.12 to 1.32), and tumors 6 cm or more (HR 1.20, 95% CI 1.09 to 1.32) were associated with risk of all-cause mortality. Esophagectomy (HR 0.50, 95% CI 0.44 to 0.56) and systemic therapy (HR 0.40, 95% CI 0.37 to 0.43) were associated with decreased risk of all-cause mortality. Patients undergoing esophagectomy had higher rates of 5-year OS (27.4% vs 13.2%, p < 0.0001) and longer median OS (24.71 vs 10.09 months, p < 0.0001). Among cT4b patients, those who underwent esophagectomy had higher rates of 5-year OS (24.5% vs 12.3%, p < 0.0001) and longer median OS (25.53 vs 11.01 months, p < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: In cT4 esophageal adenocarcinoma, esophagectomy is associated with improved rates of 5-year OS compared with nonsurgical treatment.

Clinical stage T2N0M0 rectal adenocarcinoma: Is radical resection associated with improved overall survival in patients with low-risk histology?

BACKGROUND: Prior studies evaluating the efficacy of local excision compared to radical resection in the treatment of rectal adenocarcinoma lacked sufficient power to identify differences in outcomes for patients with cT2 disease but low-risk histopathology. We compared the outcomes of local excision and radical resection for low-risk histopathology and high-risk histology of patients with cT2N0M0 rectal adenocarcinoma to assess their outcomes. METHODS: We queried the National Cancer Database for patients presenting with cT2N0M0 rectal adenocarcinoma between 2004 and 2019 and categorized them as low-risk histopathology or high-risk histology. We used the Cox proportional hazards model to identify factors associated with the risk of all-cause mortality. We 1:1 propensity-matched patients who underwent local excision to patients who underwent radical resection and used the Kaplan-Meier method to compare overall survival for matched cohorts. RESULTS: Of the 4,446 patients selected, we classified 1,206 (27%) as high-risk histology and 3,240 (73%) as low-risk histopathology. Among the patients with high-risk histology, 121 (10%) underwent local excision and 1,085 (90%) underwent radical resection. Among the patients with low-risk histopathology, 340 (10%) underwent local excision and 2,900 (90%) radical resections. Whereas radical resection was associated with decreased risk of all-cause mortality and increased overall survival for patients with high-risk histology, it was not for patients with low-risk histopathology. CONCLUSION: The overall survival of patients with low-risk histopathology with cT2N0M0 rectal adenocarcinoma who undergo local excision is similar to those of patients with low-risk histopathology who undergo radical resection, suggesting local excision is a reasonable approach for these patients. In contrast, radical resection provides a significant survival advantage for patients with high-risk histology and should remain their treatment of choice.

Does commission on cancer (CoC) accreditation mitigate the effect of care fragmentation on clinical outcome in localized rectal cancer?

BACKGROUND: Studies of fragmented care (FC) in rectal cancer have not adjusted for indicators of hospital quality and may misrepresent the effects of FC. METHODS: We queried the National Cancer Database to identify patients undergoing care for clinical stage II and III rectal adenocarcinoma between 2006 and 2019. Those undergoing FC were sub-categorized based on whether (FC CoC) or not (FC non-CoC) they received systemic therapy at CoC accredited facilities. RESULTS: 44,339 patients met inclusion criteria; 23,921 (54 â€‹%) underwent FC, 16,929 (71 â€‹%) FC non-CoC. Differences in utilization of neoadjuvant therapy (92.3 â€‹% vs 89.7 â€‹% vs 89.5 â€‹%, p â€‹< â€‹0.01) and 5-year overall survival (76.1 vs 75.5 vs 74.1 %, p â€‹< â€‹0.01) between treatment cohorts were marginal. CONCLUSION: In patients undergoing multimodality therapy for rectal cancer, care fragmentation is not associated with long-term clinical outcome. Decisions regarding where these patients go for systemic therapy may be safely made on the basis of ease of access.