Increasing Trainee Engagement in Surgery Societies: The Society of Asian Academic Surgeons Experience.

INTRODUCTION: Surgical societies provide a plethora of resources for trainees; however, these opportunities are often underused due to suboptimal guidance, sponsorship, or mentorship. Here, we present the Society of Asian Academic Surgeons (SAAS) experience in enhancing the trainee experience and engagement in a surgical society focused on professional development. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted an interactive idea-generating session during the 2022 SAAS Conference with all Associate Members (trainees) present in Honolulu, HI. Recurrent themes, concepts, and ideas/suggestions were carefully considered when planning the next SAAS Conference in Baltimore, MD. We employed a more targeted approach to trainee engagement at the 2023 SAAS Conference, with breakout sessions geared toward various levels of trainees, in addition to increased social events and networking opportunities. We obtained feedback from trainees in attendance through an electronic survey and informal conversations with faculty and Associate Members. RESULTS: Opportunities for surgical subspecialty networking was the most well-received portion of our formal Career Development program. The majority of trainees in attendance were medical students or junior residents who valued the exposure to junior faculty and those in leadership positions at academic institutions. The addition of a group text for easy communication among trainees and informal social activities for Associate Member networking among themselves were crucial in improving the overall conference experience. CONCLUSIONS: Opportunities to maximize trainee engagement in surgical societies are heightened during in-person conferences. Targeted session topics, guided networking opportunities, and creating channels for easier communication along with more social events have enhanced the overall experience for aspiring and current surgical trainees.

Utilization and effectiveness of the organ procurement and transplantation network "safety-net" policy.

BACKGROUND: Liver transplant recipients with persistent renal dysfunction may be prioritized on the kidney transplant waitlist based on the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network "safety-net" policy implemented in 2017. The aim of this study was to evaluate the utilization of kidney transplant and posttransplant outcomes, of liver transplant recipients with persistent renal dysfunction before and after implementation of the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network kidney safety-net policy and standardization of simultaneous liver-kidney requirements. METHODS: Using the United Network for Organ Sharing database from January 2015 to March 2019, outcomes of liver transplant recipients listed for kidney transplant and the subset who received kidney after liver transplants were compared before and after policy implementation. RESULTS: Liver transplant recipients listed for kidney transplant increased from 58 to 200, and kidney after liver transplants increased from 29.3% to 42.5% after safety-net policy implementation. Post-policy kidney after liver transplants received more local organs (91.8% vs 70.6%, P = .03) and trended toward shorter waitlist time (47 [17-123] vs 84 [37-226] days, P = .051). The pre- and post-policy cohorts had similar (P > .05) kidney donor profile index (0.43 [0.27-0.69] vs 0.42 [0.28-0.58]) and delayed graft function (11.8% vs 14.1%). Patient, kidney graft, and liver graft survival were similar (P > .05) between pre and post-policy cohorts. Patient and kidney graft survival were similar between kidney after liver transplants and propensity score-matched kidney transplant alone recipients. Patient, kidney, and liver graft survival were similar between kidney after liver transplants and propensity score-matched simultaneous liver-kidney transplant recipients. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrates that after Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network "safety-net" policy implementation, there has been an increase in liver transplant recipients with renal dysfunction who are listed for and undergo kidney transplant with excellent short-term results.

Expanding the Donor Pool: First Use of Hepatitis B Virus Nat Positive Solid Organ Allografts Into Seronegative Recipients.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to assess the 1-year safety and effectiveness of HBV Nucleic Acid Test positive (HBV NAT+) allografts in seronegative kidney transplant (KT) and liver transplant (LT) recipients. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: Despite an ongoing organ shortage, the utilization of HBV NAT+ allografts into seronegative recipients has not been investigated. METHODS: From January 2017 to October 2020, a prospective cohort study was conducted among consecutive KT and LT recipients at a single institution. Primary endpoints were post-transplant HBV viremia, graft and patient survival. RESULTS: With median follow-up of 1-year, there were no HBV-related complications in the 89 HBV NAT+ recipients. Only 9 of 56 KTs (16.1%) and 9 of 33 LTs (27.3%) experienced post-transplant HBV viremia at a median of 185 (KT) and 269 (LT) days postoperatively. Overall, viremic episodes resolved to undetected HBV DNA after a median of 80 days of entecavir therapy in 16 of 18 recipients. Presently, 100% of KT recipients and 93.9% of LT recipients are HBV NAT- with median follow-up of 13 months, whereas 0 KT and 8 LT (24.2%) recipients are HBV surface antigen positive indicating chronic infection. KT and LT patient and allograft survival were not different between HBV NAT+ and HBV NAT- recipients (P > 0.05), whereas HBV NAT+ KT recipients had decreased waitlist time and pretransplant duration on dialysis (P < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: This is the largest series describing the transplantation of HBV NAT+ kidney and liver allografts into HBV seronegative recipients without chronic HBV viremia or decreased 1-year patient and graft survival. Increasing the utilization of HBV NAT+ organs in nonviremic recipients can play a role in decreasing the national organ shortage.

National trends for axillary lymph node dissection and survival outcomes for clinical T3/T4 node-negative breast cancer patients undergoing mastectomy with positive lymph nodes.

PURPOSE: Previous studies have suggested axillary lymph node dissection (ALND) can be omitted in early breast cancer patients undergoing mastectomy with positive lymph nodes (LNs). We assessed the national utilization of ALND and overall survival (OS) for larger, locally advanced tumors in patients undergoing mastectomy with positive LNs. METHODS: The National Cancer Database from 2006 to 2016 was queried for mastectomy patients with clinical T3/T4, N0 tumors, and 1-2 positive LNs. Trends and outcomes for ALND were compared to sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) alone. RESULTS: Thousand nine hundred and seventeen women were included. The proportion of ALND decreased from 70% pre-Z0011 to 52% post-Z0011. On Kaplan-Meier analysis, ALND had better OS compared to SLNB alone (p < 0.01). On multivariate analysis, age (p < 0.01), chemotherapy (p < 0.01), and hormonal therapy (p < 0.01) were associated with better OS. In patients who received adjuvant radiation therapy (ART) ALND improved OS on multivariate analysis (p < 0.01). CONCLUSION: This is the first large database study to demonstrate a national trend to forego ALND in mastectomy patients with large or locally advanced tumors (T3/T4abc) and 1-2 positive lymph nodes. This study suggests a survival benefit for ALND, particularly in patients receiving ART. Careful consideration and further investigations should be performed prior to omitting ALND this patient population.

Pearls and Pitfalls of the Virtual Interview: Perspectives From Both Sides of the Camera.

As the SARS-COV-2 pandemic created the need for social distancing and the implementation of nonessential travel bans, residency and fellowship programs have moved toward a web-based virtual process for applicant interviews. As part of the Society of Asian Academic Surgeons 5th Annual Meeting, an expert panel was convened to provide guidance for prospective applicants who are new to the process. This article provides perspectives from applicants who have successfully navigated the surgical subspecialty fellowship process, as well as program leadership who have held virtual interviews.

Omission of Adjuvant Chemotherapy in Rectal Cancer Patients with Pathologic Complete Response: a National Analysis.

BACKGROUND: An increasing number of patients achieve a pathologic complete response (pCR) after neoadjuvant chemoradiation for locally advanced rectal cancer. Consensus guidelines continue to recommend oncologic resection followed by adjuvant chemotherapy in these patients. We hypothesize that there is significant variability in compliance with this recommendation. METHODS: The National Cancer Database was queried from 2006 to 2015 for patients with locally advanced rectal cancer who underwent neoadjuvant chemoradiation followed by oncologic resection with a pCR (ypT0N0). Hierarchical logistic regression models were used to generate risk and reliability-adjusted rates of adjuvant chemotherapy utilization in patients with pCR at each hospital. RESULTS: In total, 2421 pCR patients were identified. Five-year overall survival was improved in pCR patients who received adjuvant chemotherapy compared with those who did not (92 vs. 85%, p < 0.01). Multivariate analysis indicated that improvement in overall survival remained associated with adjuvant chemotherapy (HR 0.60, 95% CI 0.44-0.82, p < 0.01). The mean adjuvant chemotherapy utilization rate among hospitals was 32%. There was an upward trend in use over the past decade, but two-thirds still do not receive the recommended therapy. High chemotherapy utilizer hospitals were more likely to be academic centers (54.9 vs. 45.9%, p < 0.01) when compared with low chemotherapy utilizers. CONCLUSION: Adjuvant chemotherapy is associated with improved survival in rectal cancer patients with pCR following neoadjuvant chemoradiation and oncologic resection. However, utilization among centers in the USA was only 32% with significant variability across centers. National efforts are needed to standardize treatment patterns according to national guidelines.

Cost-Effectiveness of Utilization of Hepatitis B Virus-Positive Liver Donors for HBV-Negative Transplant Recipients.

BACKGROUND: Utilization of hepatitis B virus (HBV)-infected donors represents an opportunity to expand the liver transplantation (LT) donor pool. However, benefits of accepting HBV-positive donors for HBV-negative candidates, potentially expanding the donor pool resulting in earlier transplantation, must be balanced with costs of lifelong antiviral therapy. The aim of this study was to evaluate cost-effectiveness of this strategy. METHODS: We developed a Markov model with two strategies, transplant with (1) a HBV-positive donor versus and (2) a HBV-negative donor for a HBV-negative LT candidate. A healthcare system perspective was utilized, effectiveness measured in quality-adjusted life-years, and costs in 2018 USD. RESULTS: In the base-case, the HBV-positive donor strategy is more effective (gain of 0.46 QALYs), but $26,159 more expensive, yielding an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $57,389/QALY. However, increasing the candidate's Model for End-Stage Liver Disease score resulted in increasing cost-effectiveness, ICER of $69,507/QALY (MELD 6-10) to $47,385/QALY (MELD > 30). Results were most sensitive to antiviral cost and cost after first year of LT. In probabilistic sensitivity analysis, the HBV-positive strategy was always more effective but more expensive, with average ICER of $64,883/QALY. This strategy was highly cost-effective (ICER < $50,000/QALY) 21% of the time and cost < $100/000/QALY 94% of the time. CONCLUSIONS: Consideration of these donors must be individualized to each candidate's severity of liver disease, associated costs, and personal preferences that impact quality of life. Expansion of the donor pool to include HBV-positive donors for appropriate recipients may be a cost-effective policy and may provide significant benefit for individual patients.

Lack of National Adoption of Evidence-Based Treatment for Resectable Gastric Adenocarcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Level 1 evidence for multimodal treatment of resectable gastric adenocarcinoma from the Intergroup 0116 (2001) and MAGIC (2006) trials demonstrated survival benefit of adjuvant chemoradiation (CRT) and perioperative chemotherapy, respectively. We evaluated the adoption of evidence-based treatment in the post-MAGIC era and its impact on survival. METHODS: A total of 7058 patients with resectable gastric adenocarcinoma undergoing definitive surgical resection between 2004 and 2015 were analyzed using the National Cancer Database. RESULTS: Over the study period, the proportion of patients receiving adjuvant CRT decreased from 19.1% to 9.1%, while perioperative chemotherapy increased from 1.9% to 28.6%. Utilization of perioperative chemotherapy surpassed adjuvant CRT in 2011. Evidence-based treatment (either perioperative chemotherapy or adjuvant CRT) had better overall survival (OS) than other treatments for clinical stage II-III patients (p < 0.05). On multivariate analysis of the whole study period, evidence-based treatments were associated with better OS (HR 0.67 [0.60-0.74], p < 0.05). Only 360/1262 (28.5%) patients in the perioperative chemotherapy group completed postoperative therapy, which was associated with improved OS (p < 0.05). For clinical stage III patients (n = 2402), only 806 (33.6%) received evidence-based treatment, while 487 (22.2%) underwent surgery alone. On multivariate analysis of these patients between 2010 and 2015, both perioperative chemotherapy (HR 0.49 [0.35-0.68]) and adjuvant CRT (HR 0.31 [0.21-0.44]) were associated with better OS than surgery alone (p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Since the INT-0116 and MAGIC trials, utilization of evidence-based treatments for resectable gastric adenocarcinoma has increased, with perioperative chemotherapy surpassing adjuvant CRT as the preferred practice. However, overall utilization of these regimens remains quite low nationally despite association with improved OS.

Impact of side-to-side cavocavostomy versus traditional piggyback implantation in liver transplantation.

BACKGROUND: Traditional piggyback implantation has often been used in liver transplant; however, this technique may be hindered by difficult visualization and postoperative incidences of outflow obstruction. Side-to-side cavocavostomy is an alternative approach, but perioperative outcomes associated with this technique remain largely unknown. METHODS: In July 2017, side-to-side cavocavostomy was adopted as the standard implantation technique at our institution by all surgeons (n = 4). A prospective cohort of patients undergoing liver transplant with side-to-side cavocavostomy after July 2017 until October 2018 was compared with a historical cohort of patients who underwent liver transplant with traditional piggyback previously from January 2016 to October 2018. RESULTS: Of 290 liver transplant patients, 50% (n = 145) underwent side-to-side cavocavostomy, while the remainder underwent traditional piggyback. There were no differences in recipient age, sex, race, Model for End-Stage Liver Disease score, or donor characteristics between groups. Side-to-side cavocavostomy was associated with decreased mean number intraoperative, red blood cell transfusions (2 vs 5 units), fresh frozen plasma (5 vs 10 units), cell saver (1.0 vs 2.0 L), and rates of temporary abdominal closure (8.3% vs 24.1%) compared with traditional piggyback (all P < .05). The side-to-side cavocavostomy group had lesser Rt3s of postoperative transfusion rates of red blood cells (21.4% vs 35.9%; P = .01). CONCLUSION: Side-to-side cavocavostomy may be superior to traditional piggyback implantation with regard to technical ease and perioperative transfusion requirements. To determine the optimal implantation technique, futures studies should evaluate side-to-side cavocavostomy versus traditional piggyback in a prospective, multicenter, randomized approach.

Implications of Postoperative Complications for Survival After Cytoreductive Surgery and HIPEC: A Multi-Institutional Analysis of the US HIPEC Collaborative.

BACKGROUND: Postoperative complications (POCs) are associated with worse oncologic outcomes in various cancer histologies. The impact of POCs on the survival of patients with appendiceal or colorectal cancer after cytoreductive surgery (CRS) and heated intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) is unknown. METHODS: The US HIPEC Collaborative (2000-2017) was reviewed for patients who underwent CCR0/1 CRS/HIPEC for appendiceal/colorectal cancer. The analysis was stratified by noninvasive appendiceal neoplasm versus invasive appendiceal/colorectal adenocarcinoma. The POCs were grouped into infectious, cardiopulmonary, thromboembolic, and intestinal dysmotility. The primary outcomes were overall survival (OS) and recurrence-free survival (RFS). RESULTS: Of the 1304 patients, 33% had noninvasive appendiceal neoplasm (n = 426), and 67% had invasive appendiceal/colorectal adenocarcinoma (n = 878). In the noninvasive appendiceal cohort, POCs were identified in 55% of the patients (n = 233). The 3-year OS and RFS did not differ between the patients who experienced a complication and those who did not (OS, 94% vs 94%, p = 0.26; RFS, 68% vs 60%, p = 0.15). In the invasive appendiceal/colorectal adenocarcinoma cohort, however, POCs (63%; n = 555) were associated with decreased 3-year OS (59% vs 74%; p < 0.001) and RFS (32% vs 42%; p < 0.001). Infectious POCs were the most common (35%; n = 196). In Multivariable analysis accounting for gender, peritoneal cancer index (PCI), and incomplete resection (CCR1), infectious POCs in particular were associated with decreased OS compared with no complication (hazard ratio [HR] 2.08; p < 0.01) or other types of complications (HR, 1.6; p < 0.01). Similarly, infectious POCs were independently associated with worse RFS (HR 1.61; p < 0.01). CONCLUSION: Postoperative complications are associated with decreased OS and RFS after CRS/HIPEC for invasive histology, but not for an indolent disease such as noninvasive appendiceal neoplasm, and this association is largely driven by infectious complications. The exact mechanism is unknown, but may be immunologic. Efforts must target best practices and standardized prevention strategies to minimize infectious postoperative complications.

The road to academic surgical leadership: Characteristics and experiences of surgical chairpersons.

BACKGROUND: The evolving landscape of academic surgery demands leaders who are not only effective clinicians and researchers, but also administrators able to navigate complex hospital organizations, financial pressures in the era of quality measures, and inclusion of an increasingly diverse workforce. The aim of this study was to characterize achievements and assess perspectives in becoming a surgical chair in order to guide young surgeons in their career trajectories to surgical leadership. METHODS: A survey encompassing demographics, surgical training, nonmedical advanced degrees, academic advancement, and leadership experiences was sent via electronic mail to members of the American College of Surgeons Society of Surgical Chairs in December 2018. RESULTS: Of 191 Society of Surgical Chairs members, 52 (27.2%) completed the survey, with 6 (11.5%) women, 40 (76.9%) white, and the majority becoming chair between ages 46 and 60 (n = 39, 75.0%). Training beyond residency included fellowships (n = 41, 78.8%) and advanced nonmedical degrees (n = 15, 28.8%). Median H-index was 47 (range 10-120) with 126 (5-500) research publications, and grants received was 2 (0-38) for federal and 5 (0-43) for industry. Female chairs appear to have fewer nonmedical degrees (n = 1) and no difference in age at becoming chair (66.7% vs 79.6% between ages 46 and 60), H-index (26 [10-41] vs 49 [17-120]), or publications (93 [10-189] vs 150 [5,500]). Prior educational (n = 36, 69.2%) and clinical (n = 44, 84.6%) leadership roles were common, with 30 chairs (57.7%) having held both roles. Experiences which respondents felt have most helped them function as chair included serving as a clinical division director (n = 37, 71.2%), residency program director (n = 28, 53.8%), leadership courses (n = 28, 53.8%), a research career (n = 22, 42.3%), and being a vice/interim chair (n = 15, 28.8%). Personal traits felt to be most important in becoming a successful chair included being effective at communication (n = 37, 71.2%), collaborative (n = 35, 67.3%), trustworthy (n = 30, 57.7%), and a problem-solver (n = 27, 51.9%). CONCLUSION: Becoming a department surgical chair often involves not only surgical subspecialty expertise, but also nonmedical training and prior leadership roles, which help facilitate development of skills integral to navigating the collaborative and diverse nature of academic surgery in the current era.

National Trend of Axillary Management in Clinical T3/T4 N0 Patients Having Breast Conserving Therapy.

BACKGROUND: The ACOSOG Z0011 trial has essentially eliminated axillary lymph node dissection (ALND) in breast conserving therapy (BCT) patients with clinical T1/T2 and 1-2 positive sentinel lymph nodes (SLNs). Currently, ALND is recommended for positive SLNs unless ACOSOG Z0011 criteria are applicable. We aimed to assess the national trends and axillary management before and after the publication of ACOSOG Z0011 for larger tumors. METHODS: An IRB-approved study evaluated the National Cancer Database from 2006 to 2016. Women with clinical T3/T4, N0 who otherwise fit ACOSOG Z0011 criteria were included. Neoadjuvant systemic therapy or known nodal disease was excluded. Clinicopathologic data were compared between two timeframes based on ACOSOZ Z0011 publication and by axillary management. Patients were categorized into SLNB alone (1-5 lymph nodes examined) and ALND (≥10 lymph nodes examined) groups. RESULTS: A total of 230 women fit inclusion criteria, of whom 36% underwent ALND. ALND use decreased from 54% in 2006 to 14% in 2016 (P < 0.01). Comparing ALND to SLNB alone within the pre-Z0011 era, comprehensive community cancer programs had higher proportions of ALND, whereas academic centers had higher rates of SLND alone (P = 0.03). Comparing similar axillary management between eras, SLNB-alone patients in the post-Z0011 era had higher pT and pN stages, were less likely to be Her2 positive, and were more likely to receive systemic treatment. CONCLUSIONS: There is a national trend to forgo ALND in women who have tumors larger than those included in the Z0011 criteria without any clear clinicopathologic indications.

Small Bowel Adenocarcinomas: Impact of Location on Survival.

BACKGROUND: Proximal (duodenal) small bowel adenocarcinomas have a worse prognosis than distal (jejuno-ileal) tumors, but differences in patient, tumor, and treatment factors between locations remain unclear. METHODS: Patients in the National Cancer Database with surgically resected pathologic stage I-IV small bowel adenocarcinomas between 2004 and 2015 were analyzed. Clinical stage IV patients were excluded. RESULTS: Proximal tumors (n = 3767) were more likely to be higher grade (OR 1.52, CI 1.22-1.85 for moderately; OR 1.83, CI 1.49-2.33 for poorly differentiated, P < 0.01 for both) and have positive lymph nodes (OR 2.04, CI 1.30-3.23, P < 0.01), while distal tumors (n = 3252) were likely to be larger (OR 1.31, CI 1.07-1.60 for size > 5 cm, P < 0.01). Proximal tumors were associated with worse overall survival (OS) and stage-specific survival compared with distal tumors (all P < 0.01). Cox regression analysis of the entire cohort showed worse survival with community versus academic cancer programs, higher comorbidity scores, pathologic stage IV, poorly differentiated histology, positive nodal or margin status, and proximal location, while female gender, larger tumor size, and chemotherapy predicted better survival. On separate Cox regression analyses of each location, neoadjuvant chemotherapy was associated with better OS in the proximal cohort (HR 0.70, CI 0.55-0.88, P < 0.01), while adjuvant chemotherapy was associated with better OS for both proximal (HR 0.49, CI 0.42-0.57, P < 0.01) and distal tumors (HR 0.68, CI 0.57-0.81, P < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Proximal small bowel adenocarcinomas are associated with worse overall and stage-specific survival. This may be due to tumor biologic differences as proximal tumors were more likely to have higher grade. Future studies should further investigate differences between proximal and distal tumors to guide targeted treatment algorithms.

Obesity, transplantation, and bariatric surgery: An evolving solution for a growing epidemic.

The increasing obesity epidemic has major implications in the realm of transplantation. Patients with obesity face barriers in access to transplant and unique challenges in perioperative and postoperative outcomes. Because of comorbidities associated with obesity, along with the underlying end-stage organ disease leading to transplant candidacy, these patients may not even be referred for transplant evaluation, much less be waitlisted or actually undergo transplant. However, the use of bariatric surgery in this population can help optimize the transplant candidacy of patients with obesity and end-stage organ disease and improve perioperative and postoperative outcomes. We review the impact of obesity on kidney, liver, and cardiothoracic transplant candidates and recipients and explore potential interventions to address obesity in these populations.

Retrospective Analysis of Peri-Intubation Hypoxemia During the Coronavirus Disease 2019 Epidemic Using a Protocol for Modified Airway Management.

This single-center retrospective study evaluated a protocol for the intubation of patients with confirmed or suspected coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Twenty-one patients were intubated, 9 of whom were found to have COVID-19. Adherence to the airway management protocol was high. COVID-19 patients had lower peripheral capillary oxygen saturation by pulse oximetry (Spo2) nadirs during intubation (Spo2, 73% [72%-77%] vs 89% [86%-94%], P = .024), and a greater percentage experienced severe hypoxemia defined as Spo2 ≤80% (89% vs 25%, P = .008). The incidence of severe hypoxemia in COVID-19 patients should be considered in the development of guidelines that incorporate high-flow nasal cannula and noninvasive positive pressure ventilation.

Optimal Surveillance Frequency After CRS/HIPEC for Appendiceal and Colorectal Neoplasms: A Multi-institutional Analysis of the US HIPEC Collaborative.

BACKGROUND: No guidelines exist for surveillance following cytoreductive surgery with hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (CRS/HIPEC) for appendiceal and colorectal cancer. The primary objective was to define the optimal surveillance frequency after CRS/HIPEC. METHODS: The U.S. HIPEC Collaborative database (2000-2017) was reviewed for patients who underwent a CCR0/1 CRS/HIPEC for appendiceal or colorectal cancer. Radiologic surveillance frequency was divided into two categories: low-frequency surveillance (LFS) at q6-12mos or high-frequency surveillance (HFS) at q2-4mos. Primary outcome was overall survival (OS). RESULTS: Among 975 patients, the median age was 55 year, 41% were male: 31% had non-invasive appendiceal (n = 301), 45% invasive appendiceal (n = 435), and 24% colorectal cancer (CRC; n = 239). With a median follow-up time of 25 mos, the median time to recurrence was 12 mos. Despite less surveillance, LFS patients had no decrease in median OS (non-invasive appendiceal: 106 vs. 65 mos, p < 0.01; invasive appendiceal: 120 vs. 73 mos, p = 0.02; colorectal cancer [CRC]: 35 vs. 30 mos, p = 0.8). LFS patients had lower median PCI scores compared with HFS (non-invasive appendiceal: 10 vs. 19; invasive appendiceal: 10 vs. 14; CRC: 8 vs. 11; all p < 0.01). However, on multivariable analysis, accounting for PCI score, LFS was still not associated with decreased OS for any histologic type (non-invasive appendiceal: hazard ratio [HR]: 0.28, p = 0.1; invasive appendiceal: HR: 0.73, p = 0.42; CRC: HR: 1.14, p = 0.59). When estimating annual incident cases of CRS/HIPEC at 375 for non-invasive appendiceal, 375 invasive appendiceal and 4410 colorectal, LFS compared with HFS for the initial two post-operative years would potentially save $13-19 M/year to the U.S. healthcare system. CONCLUSIONS: Low-frequency surveillance after CRS/HIPEC for appendiceal or colorectal cancer is not associated with decreased survival, and when considering decreased costs, may optimize resource utilization.

Readmissions After Cytoreductive Surgery and Hyperthermic Intraperitoneal Chemotherapy: a US HIPEC Collaborative Study.

BACKGROUND: Cytoreductive surgery and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (CRS-HIPEC) results in significant morbidity and readmissions. Previous studies have been limited by single-institution design or lack of tumor details in the database used. METHODS: The 12-institution US HIPEC Collaborative Database was queried between 1999 and 2017. Preoperative and intraoperative patient and tumor details were analyzed for associations with readmissions. RESULTS: A total of 2017 of 2372 cases were included in the analysis. The 30-day readmission rate was 15.9% (n = 321). Common indications for readmission included failure to thrive (29.9%), infection (23.6%), and ileus/bowel obstruction (15.1%). The readmitted cohort had more complications, including intra-abdominal abscess (21.2% vs 6.2%), ileus (28.0% vs 17.2%), anastomotic leak (11.2% vs 2.2%), enteric fistula (5.6% vs 1.5%), deep venous thrombosis (6.2% vs 2.5%), and pulmonary embolism (6.9% vs 2.5%). Factors independently associated with readmission (p < 0.05) included ECOG score ≥ 3 (OR 3.4), depression (OR 2.4), total parenteral nutrition (OR 3.6), low anterior resection or partial colectomy (OR 2.0), and stoma creation (OR 2.2). Factors not associated included neoadjuvant chemotherapy, peritoneal cancer index, and completeness of cytoreduction. Readmission rate between 31 and 90 days was 3.9% (n = 78). Independent predictors (p < 0.05) included operative time (OR 1.1), low anterior resection or partial colectomy (OR 1.7), and stoma creation (OR 2.2). CONCLUSIONS: In the largest study to date examining readmissions after CRS-HIPEC, 30-day readmission rate was 15.9%. Tumor factors failed to predict readmission, whereas preoperative functional status and depression along with individual cytoreductive procedures predicted readmission. Patients with these risk factors or postoperative complications may benefit from closer post-discharge monitoring.

Outcomes of en bloc simultaneous liver-kidney transplantation compared to the traditional technique.

Simultaneous liver-kidney transplantation (SLKT) is indicated for patients with end-stage liver disease (ESLD) and concurrent renal insufficiency. En bloc SLKT is an alternative to traditional separate implantations, but studies comparing the two techniques are limited. The en bloc technique maintains renal outflow via donor infrahepatic vena cava and inflow via anastomosis of donor renal artery to donor splenic artery. Comparison of recipients of en bloc (n = 17) vs traditional (n = 17) SLKT between 2013 and 2017 was performed. Recipient demographics and comorbidities were similar. More recipients of traditional SLKT were dialysis dependent (82.4% vs 41.2%, P = .01) with lower baseline pretransplant eGFR (14 vs 18, P = .01). En bloc SLKT was associated with shorter kidney cold ischemia time (341 vs 533 minutes, P < .01) and operative time (374 vs 511 minutes, P < .01). Two en bloc patients underwent reoperation for kidney allograft inflow issues due to kinking and renal steal. Early kidney allograft dysfunction (23.5% in both groups), 1-year kidney graft survival (88.2% vs 82.4%, P = 1.0), and posttransplantation eGFR were similar between groups. In our experience, the en bloc SLKT technique is safe and feasible, with comparable outcomes to the traditional method.