Exploring Rural-Urban Differences in the Receipt of Nonelective Cancer-specific Gastrointestinal Surgery Using a Multilevel Mixed-Effects Approach.

BACKGROUND: Rural communities constitute a populace marked by various social challenges influencing health outcomes. As such, nonelective surgeries for cancer may have a disproportionate impact on rural populations. We explored patient and county-level factors contributing to differences in the receipt of nonelective cancer-specific surgery between rural and urban residents. METHODS: This retrospective study included adult patients captured in the SEER-Medicare data between January 2008 and December 2015 with an incident stage I-IV cancer of the stomach, liver/intrahepatic bile duct, pancreas, gallbladder/other biliary origin, or small intestine who underwent a cancer-specific surgery. The primary outcome was nonelective cancer-directed surgery among rural versus urban residents. We conducted a multivariable mixed-effects logistic regression model to adjust for confounders while accounting for county-level clustering. RESULTS: The sample included 10,136 patients who underwent a surgical intervention; 2,941 (29%) were nonelective. The incidence of nonelective surgery was lower among rural compared tourban patients [351 (27%) and 2590(29%); p= 0.05]. There was no statistically significant difference in the unadjusted and adjusted odds of nonelective surgery between rural and urban residents [OR 0.88, 95% CI (0.76-1.03); p= 0.11] and [aOR 0.86, 95% CI (0.72-1.02); p= 0.080]. Additionally, high social vulnerability index counties or Black race was significantly associated with increase odds of nonelective surgery [aOR 1.33, 95% CI (1.07-1.65); p=0.009] and [aOR 1.49, 95% CI (1.26-1.77); p<0.0001], respectively. CONCLUSION: This study found no difference in the odds of receiving nonelective surgery for GI foregut cancers between rural and urban populations. However, Black race and high SVI were associated with higher odds of the receipt of nonelective surgery. Further research is warranted to explore if disparities in clinical outcomes exist despite the comparable likelihood of receiving nonelective surgery between rural and urban communities.

Factors Associated With Surgical Management in Gallbladder Cancer-A Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Medicare-Based Study.

INTRODUCTION: Gallbladder cancer (GBC) incidence is rising, yet prognosis remains poor. Oncological resection of stage T1b or higher improves survival, yet many patients do not receive appropriate resection. This study aims to evaluate factors that may attribute to this discrepancy using the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results-Medicare (SEER-Medicare) database. MATERIALS AND METHODS: SEER Medicare (2008-2015) patients with GBC stage T1b or higher were classified as receiving cholecystectomy alone (CCY) or cholecystectomy and liver/biliary resection (oncologic resection). Outcomes and overall survival were compared, before and after propensity score matching on baseline characteristics, using Chi-square and Wilcoxon rank-sum tests for categorical and continuous variables, respectively. RESULTS: We identified 1129 patients of which 830 underwent CCY (58.3% early stage/41.7% late stage) while 299 had complete resection (54.2% early stage/45.8% late stage). CCY patients were more often female (73.4% versus 65.6%; P = 0.0104), ≥80 y old (48.2% versus 22.4%; P < 0.0001), frail (44.5% versus 27.1%; P < 0.0001), treated by general surgeons (98.1% versus 84.9%; P < 0.0001) versus surgical oncologists, not undergoing chemotherapy (72.3% versus 54.5%; P < 0.0001), managed at nonacademic hospitals (51.2% versus 28.4%; P < 0.0001). After matching, oncologic resection demonstrated improved overall survival compared to CCY at 1-y (69.2% versus 47.2%; P < 0.0001), 3-y (42.8% versus 21.1%; P < 0.0001), and 5-y (37.5% versus 17.4%; P < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Most GBC patients may not be receiving appropriate oncological resection, especially patients who are female, older, frail, operated on by a general surgeon, not undergoing chemotherapy, or managed at nonacademic hospitals. Even when adjusting for patient factors, complete resection is associated with overall survival outcomes at multiple endpoints. Limiting sex, age, and frail status as factors and involving surgical oncologists or receiving management at academic centers may increase oncologic resection rates and thus improve survival for GBC patients.

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.

Delay and Disparity in Observed vs Predicted Incidence Rate of Screenable Cancer During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic resulted in disruption of healthcare services, including cancer screenings, yet data on this are limited. We sought to compare observed and expected cancer incidence rates for screenable cancers, quantifying potential missed diagnoses. STUDY DESIGN: Lung, female breast, and colorectal cancer patients from 2010 to 2020 in the National Cancer Database were standardized to calculate annual incidence rates per 100,000. A linear regression model of 2010 through 2019 incidence rates (pre-COVID) was used to calculate predicted 2020 incidence compared with observed incidence in 2020 (COVID) with subanalyses for age, sex, race, ethnicity, and geographic region. RESULTS: In total, 1,707,395 lung, 2,200,505 breast, and 1,066,138 colorectal cancer patients were analyzed. After standardizing, the observed 2020 incidence was 66.888, 152.059, and 36.522 per 100,000 compared with the predicted 2020 incidence of 81.650, 178.124, and 44.837 per 100,000, resulting in an observed incidence decrease of -18.1%, -14.6%, and -18.6% for lung, breast, and colorectal cancer, respectively. The difference was amplified on subanalysis for lung (female, 65 or more years old, non-White, Hispanic, Northeastern and Western region), breast (65 or more years old, non-Black, Hispanic, Northeastern and Western region), and colorectal (male, less than 65 years old, non-White, Hispanic, and Western region) cancer patients. CONCLUSIONS: The reported incidence of screenable cancers significantly decreased during the COVID-19 pandemic (2020), suggesting that many patients currently harbor undiagnosed cancers. In addition to the human toll, this will further burden the healthcare system and increase future healthcare costs. It is imperative that providers empower patients to schedule cancer screenings to flatten this pending oncologic wave.

The Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Hepatocellular Carcinoma Time to Treatment Initiation: A National Cancer Database Study.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic strained oncologic care access and delivery, yet little is known about how it impacted hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) management. Our study sought to evaluate the annual effect of the COVID-19 pandemic on time to treatment initiation (TTI) for HCC. METHODS: The National Cancer Database was queried for patients diagnosed with clinical stages I-IV HCC (2017-2020). Patients were categorized based on their year of diagnosis as "Pre-COVID" (2017-2019) and "COVID" (2020). TTI based on stage and type of treatment first received was compared by the Mann-Whitney U test. A logistic regression model was used to evaluate factors of increased TTI and treatment delay (> 90 days). RESULTS: In total, 18,673 patients were diagnosed during Pre-COVID, whereas 5249 were diagnosed during COVID. Median TTI for any first-line treatment modality was slightly shorter during the COVID year compared with Pre-COVID (49 vs. 51 days; p < 0.0001), notably in time to ablation (52 vs. 55 days; p = 0.0238), systemic therapy (42 vs. 47 days; p < 0.0001), and radiation (60 vs. 62 days; p = 0.0177), but not surgery (41 vs. 41 days; p = 0.6887). In a multivariate analysis, patients of Black race, Hispanic ethnicity, and uninsured/Medicaid/Other Government insurance status were associated with increased TTI by factors of 1.057 (95% CI: 1.022-1.093; p = 0.0013), 1.045 (95% CI: 1.010-1.081; p = 0.0104), and 1.088 (95% CI: 1.053-1.123; p < 0.0001), respectively. Similarly, these patient populations were associated with delayed treatment times. CONCLUSIONS: For patients diagnosed during COVID, TTI for HCC, while statistically significant, had no clinically significant differences. However, vulnerable patients were more likely to have increased TTI.

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.

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.

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.

Exclusion criteria: Evaluating the impact of enrollment requirements in SEER-Medicare research.

BACKGROUND: Enrollment criteria are routinely utilized in patient selection in SEER-Medicare but little is known about how this may be impacting research outcomes. This study evaluated demographics and survival among pancreatic cancer patients who are included and excluded from SEER-Medicare analyses. METHODS: Patients ≥66 years old with pancreatic cancer were identified (SEER-Medicare, 2008-2015). Two patient cohorts were compared: included (continuous enrollment in Medicare Parts A and B and no enrollment in Medicare Advantage), and excluded. Mortality was assessed using a Standardized Mortality Ratio. RESULTS: Among 49,017 patients with pancreatic cancer, 59.5% were in the included cohort. The excluded cohort was younger (median age 74 vs. 77) with more male (49.9% vs. 47.8%), non-white (33.0% vs. 21.3%) and urban-dwelling patients (91.0% vs. 85.0%). Those excluded had a higher mortality risk (SMR 1.06, 95%CI 1.04-1.07). CONCLUSIONS: There are significant differences in patient demographics and mortality among those who are and are not routinely included in SEER-Medicare analyses and our study provides a critical opportunity to quantify this potential bias.

A Rising Tide Lifts All Boats: Impact of Combined Volume of Complex Cancer Operations on Surgical Outcomes in a Low-Volume Setting.

BACKGROUND: Centralization for complex cancer surgery may not always be feasible owing to socioeconomic disparities, geographic constraints, or patient preference. The present study investigates how the combined volume of complex cancer operations impacts postoperative outcomes at hospitals that are low-volume for a specific high-risk cancer operation. STUDY DESIGN: Patients who underwent pneumonectomy, esophagectomy, gastrectomy, hepatectomy, pancreatectomy, or proctectomy were identified from the National Cancer Database (2004-2017). For every operation, 3 separate cohorts were created: low-volume hospitals (LVH) for both the individual cancer operation and the total number of those complex operations, mixed-volume hospital (MVH) with low volume for the individual cancer operation but high volume for total number of complex operations, and high-volume hospitals (HVH) for each specific operation. RESULTS: LVH was significantly (all p ≤ 0.01) predictive for 30-day mortality compared with HVH across all operations: pneumonectomy (9.5% vs 7.9%), esophagectomy (5.6% vs 3.2%), gastrectomy (6.8% vs 3.6%), hepatectomy (5.9% vs 3.2%), pancreatectomy (4.7% vs 2.3%), and proctectomy (2.4% vs 1.3%). Patients who underwent surgery at MVH and HVH demonstrated similar 30-day mortality: esophagectomy (3.2 vs 3.2%; p = 0.993), gastrectomy (3.2% vs 3.6%; p = 0.637), hepatectomy (3.8% vs 3.2%; p = 0.233), pancreatectomy (2.8% vs 2.3%; p = 0.293), and proctectomy (1.2% vs 1.3%; p = 0.843). Patients who underwent pneumonectomy at MVH demonstrated lower 30-day mortality compared with HVH (5.4% vs 7.9%; p = 0.045). CONCLUSION: Patients who underwent complex operations at MVH had similar postoperative outcomes to those at HVH. MVH provide a model for the centralization of complex cancer surgery for patients who do not receive their care at HVH.

Beyond insurance status: the impact of Medicaid expansion on the diagnosis of Hepatocellular Carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Medicaid expansion has led to earlier stage diagnoses in several cancers but has not been studied in hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), a disease with complex risk factors. We examined the effect of Medicaid expansion on the diagnosis of HCC and associations with county-level social vulnerability. METHODS: Patients with HCC <65 years of age were identified from the SEER database (2010-2016). County-level social vulnerability factors were obtained from the CDC SVI and BRFSS. A Difference-in-Difference analysis evaluated change in early-stage diagnoses (stage I-II) between expansion and non-expansion states. A Difference-in-Difference-in-Difference analysis evaluated expansion impact among counties with higher proportions of social vulnerability. RESULTS: Of 19,751 patients identified, 81.5% were in expansion states. Uninsured status decreased in expansion states (6.3%-2.4%, p < 0.0001) and remained unchanged in non-expansion states (12.7%-14.8%, p = 0.43). There was no significant difference in the incidence of early-stage diagnoses between expansion states and non-expansion states. Results were consistent when accounting for social vulnerability. CONCLUSION: Medicaid expansion was not associated with earlier stage diagnoses in patients with HCC, including those with higher social vulnerability. Unlike other cancers, expanded access did not translate into higher utilization of care in HCC, suggesting barriers on a multitude of levels.

Lymphadenectomy in gallbladder adenocarcinoma: Are we doing enough?

BACKGROUND: Current AJCC guidelines recommend evaluating ≥6 lymph nodes during gallbladder cancer resection but real world data suggest this is rarely achieved. We evaluated the extent of lymphadenectomy and survival among patients with gallbladder adenocarcinoma. METHODS: Patients with resected pT1b-T3 gallbladder adenocarcinoma were identified from the NCDB (2004-2017). Propensity scores were created for the odds of sufficient lymphadenectomy (≥6 nodes), patients were matched 1:1 and survival was analyzed using the Kaplan-Meier method. RESULTS: Overall, 4760 patients were identified: 16.7% underwent sufficient lymphadenectomy, which was predictive of nodal disease (OR 1.77, 95%CI 1.51-2.08) and demonstrated a survival benefit in N0 (median OS 140.8 versus 44.4 months; p < 0.0001) and N1-2 disease (median OS 27.7 versus 17.7 months; p < 0.0001) after matching. CONCLUSIONS: The majority of patients with gallbladder adenocarcinoma do not undergo the recommended nodal dissection, resulting in a survival disadvantage, likely due to understaging, decisions regarding adjuvant therapy and local tumor recurrence.

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.