Top Peritoneal Surface Malignancy Articles from 2022 to Inform your Cancer Practice.

Over the last few decades, the role of cytoreductive surgery (CRS) with or without regional-based peritoneal therapies such as hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) has evolved in the management of patients with peritoneal surface malignances (PSMs). Despite the benefit of CRS in improving oncologic outcomes, significant challenges remain in the treatment of patients with advanced PSMs, and the role of HIPEC continues to be questioned. Additionally, while there has been improvement in perioperative outcomes, long-term survival remains poor. As a result, there is much need to improve our understanding of the processes that drive tumor biology, thereby improving patient selection for various treatment approaches. Additionally, newer therapies are needed for patients who remain poor surgical candidates and who progress on systemic therapy. This article highlights recently published studies that we consider impactful in the care of patients with PSMs.

Finding Comfort in Discomfort Reflecting on Stories Told.

INTRODUCTION: The 2022 Presidential Address for the Association for Academic Surgery was focused on better understanding the personal and professional challenges faced by surgeons during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: As part of this work, we embarked on a listening tour, inviting surgeons from all over the country to tell us their stories. This led to forming a panel of five selected participants based on how their stories crosscut many of the most prevalent themes during those conversations. Here, we present thematic excerpts of the 2022 presidential panel, intending to capture that moment and challenge surgeons to contribute to an ever-evolving movement that pushes us to unpack some of our greatest areas of discomfort. RESULTS: We found that, in many ways, the COVID-19 pandemic brought into focus what many surgeons from marginalized groups have historically struggled with. Dominant themes from these conversations included the role of surgery in informing identity, the tensions between personal and professional identity, the consequences of maintaining medicine as an apolitical space, and reflections on initiatives to address inequities. Panelists also reflected on the hope that these conversations are part of a movement that leads to sustained change rather than a passing moment. CONCLUSIONS: The primary goal of this work was to center voices and experiences in a way that challenges us to become comfortable with topics that often cause discomfort, validate experiences, and foster a community that allows us to rethink what and whom we value in surgery. We hope this work serves as a guide to having these conversations in other institutions.

Validation of the AJCC 8th Edition Staging System for Disseminated Appendiceal Cancer Patients Treated with Cytoreductive Surgery and Hyperthermic Intraperitoneal Chemotherapy: A Multi-institutional Analysis.

BACKGROUND: The AJCC 8th edition stratifies stage IV disseminated appendiceal cancer (dAC) patients based on grade and pathology. This study was designed to externally validate the staging system and to identify predictors of long-term survival. METHODS: A 12-institution cohort of dAC patients treated with CRS ± HIPEC was retrospectively analyzed. Overall survival (OS) and recurrence-free survival (RFS) were analyzed by using Kaplan-Meier and log-rank tests. Univariate and multivariate cox-regression was performed to assess factors associated with OS and RFS. RESULTS: Among 1009 patients, 708 had stage IVA and 301 had stage IVB disease. Median OS (120.4 mo vs. 47.2 mo) and RFS (79.3 mo vs. 19.8 mo) was significantly higher in stage IVA compared with IVB patients (p < 0.0001). RFS was greater among IVA-M1a (acellular mucin only) than IV M1b/G1 (well-differentiated cellular dissemination) patients (NR vs. 64 mo, p = 0.0004). Survival significantly differed between mucinous and nonmucinous tumors (OS 106.1 mo vs. 41.0 mo; RFS 46.7 mo vs. 21.2 mo, p < 0.05), and OS differed between well, moderate, and poorly differentiated (120.4 mo vs. 56.3 mo vs. 32.9 mo, p < 0.05). Both stage and grade were independent predictors of OS and RFS on multivariate analysis. Acellular mucin and mucinous histology were associated with better OS and RFS on univariate analysis only. CONCLUSIONS: AJCC 8th edition performed well in predicting outcomes in this large cohort of dAC patients treated with CRS ± HIPEC. Separation of stage IVA patients based on the presence of acellular mucin improved prognostication, which may inform treatment and long-term, follow-up strategies.

Outcomes of plastic surgical reconstruction in extremity and truncal soft tissue sarcoma: Results from the US Sarcoma Collaborative.

BACKGROUND: This study aimed to define how utilization of plastic surgical reconstruction (PSR) affects perioperative outcomes, locoregional recurrence-free survival (LRRFS), and overall survival (OS) after radical resection of extremity and truncal soft tissue sarcoma (ETSTS). The secondary aim was to determine factors associated with PSR. METHODS: Patients who underwent resection of ETSTS between 2000 and 2016 were identified from a multi-institutional database. PSR was defined as complex primary closure requiring a plastic surgeon, skin graft, or tissue-flap reconstruction. Outcomes included PSR utilization, postoperative complications, LRRFS, and OS. RESULTS: Of 2750 distinct operations, 1060 (38.55%) involved PSR. Tissue-flaps (854, 80.57%) were most commonly utilized. PSR was associated with a higher proportion of R0 resections (83.38% vs. 74.42%, p < 0.001). Tissue-flap PSR was associated with local wound complications (odds ratio: 1.81, confidence interval: 1.21-2.72, p = 0.004). Neither PSR nor postoperative complications were independently associated with LRRFS or OS. High-grade tumors (1.60, 1.13-2.26, p = 0.008) and neoadjuvant radiation (1.66, 1.20-2.30, p = 0.002) were associated with the need for PSR. CONCLUSION: Patients with ETSTS undergoing resection with PSR experienced acceptable rates of complications and a higher rate of negative margins, which were associated with improved LRRFS and OS. High tumor grade and neoadjuvant radiation were associated with requirement of PSR.

Appendiceal Incidentalomas: Prevalence, Radiographic Characteristics, Management, and Outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Radiographically detected incidental appendiceal abnormalities, in this report termed "appendiceal incidentalomas" (AIs), are an ill-defined entity with an unknown prevalence of neoplasm. This study aimed to describe the prevalence, radiographic characteristics, and outcomes of patients with a diagnosis of AI. METHODS: The study reviewed the electronic health records for patients at a single institution undergoing abdominopelvic computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) from 2000 to 2020 for non-appendix-related complaints with mention of appendix abnormality in the radiology report. The suggested diagnosis at the index imaging was recorded. Outcomes were compared between the operative and non-operative patients. RESULTS: Of 5197 records, 484 were identified as reports of AIs (9 % of screened patients). Neoplasms were suggested radiographically in 16 % (n = 79) of the records, 59 % (47/79) of which were resected. Pathologically, 32 of the abnormalities were confirmed as neoplasms, yielding a diagnostic accuracy of 68 %. Compared with the non-operative patients, the operative patients had AIs with a larger mean diameter (22.7 ± 13.0 vs. 17.8 ±7.7 mm; p = 0.04), a higher colonoscopy rate (51 % vs. 22 %; p = 0.01), and diagnosis at a younger age (55.8 ± 15.6 vs. 67.2 ± 16.0 years; p = 0.003). The postoperative complications were minor (Clavien-Dindo grade 1 or 2) in 26 % and major (grades 3-5) in 4 % of the cases. During a median follow-up period of 28.3 months, 94 % of the patients were alive without disease, and 6 % died of other causes. The 32 non-operative suggested neoplastic AIs had a median follow-up period of 20.9 months. At this writing, 59 % of the operative patients are alive with a stable abnormal appendix, 13 % had no appendix abnormality at last follow-up visit, and 28 % have died of other causes. CONCLUSION: Neoplastic AIs are an uncommon finding and radiographically diagnosed with relatively high accuracy. Larger appendiceal diameter and younger age predict operative intervention. Although surgery is associated with favorable outcomes and minimal risk of postoperative complications, observation of suspected neoplastic AIs may be a safe alternative for select patients undergoing follow-up longitudinal imaging.

Two-Stage Hepatectomy for Bilateral Colorectal Liver Metastases: A Multi-institutional Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Two-stage hepatectomy (TSH) is an important tool in the management of bilateral colorectal liver metastases (CRLM). This study sought to examine the presentation, management, and outcomes of patients completing TSH in major hepatobiliary centers in the United States (US). METHODS: A retrospective review from five liver centers in the US identified patients who completed a TSH procedure for bilateral CRLM. RESULTS: From December 2000 to March 2016, a total of 196 patients were identified. The majority of procedures were performed using an open technique (n = 194, 99.5%). The median number of tumors was 7 (range 2-33). One-hundred and twenty-eight (65.3%) patients underwent portal vein embolization. More patients received chemotherapy prior to the first stage than chemotherapy administration preceding the second stage (92% vs. 60%, p = 0.308). Median overall survival (OS) was 50 months, with a median follow-up of 28 months (range 2-143). Hepatic artery infusion chemotherapy was administered to 64 (32.7%) patients with similar OS as those managed without an infusion pump (p = 0.848). Postoperative morbidity following the second-stage resection was 47.4%. Chemotherapy prior to the second stage did not demonstrate an increased complication rate (p = 0.202). Readmission following the second stage was 10.3% and was associated with a decrease in disease-free survival (p = 0.003). OS was significantly decreased by positive resection margins and increased estimated blood loss (EBL; p = 0.036 and p = 0.05, respectively). CONCLUSION: This is the largest TSH series in the US and demonstrates evidence of safety and feasibility in the management of bilateral CRLM. Outcomes are influenced by margin status and operative EBL.

A novel preoperative risk score to guide patient selection for resection of soft tissue sarcoma lung metastases: An analysis from the United States Sarcoma Collaborative.

BACKGROUND: Surgical resection for sarcoma lung metastases has been associated with improved overall survival (OS). METHODS: Patients who underwent curative-intent resection of sarcoma lung metastases (2000-2016) were identified from the US Sarcoma Collaborative. Patients with extrapulmonary metastatic disease or R2 resections of primary tumor or metastases were excluded. Primary endpoint was OS. RESULTS: Three hundred and fifty-two patients met inclusion criteria. Location of primary tumor was truncal/extremity in 85% (n = 270) and retroperitoneal in 15% (n = 49). Forty-nine percent (n = 171) of patients had solitary and 51% (n = 180) had multiple lung metastasis. Median OS was 49 months; 5-year OS 42%. Age ≥55 (HR 1.77), retroperitoneal primary (HR 1.67), R1 resection of primary (HR 1.72), and multiple (≥2) lung metastases (HR 1.77) were associated with decreased OS(all p < 0.05). Assigning one point for each factor, we developed a risk score from 0 to 4. Patients were then divided into two risk groups: low (0-1 factor) and high (2-4 factors). The low-risk group (n = 159) had significantly better 5-year OS compared to the high-risk group (n = 108) (51% vs. 16%, p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: We identified four characteristics that in aggregate portend a worse OS and created a novel prognostic risk score for patients with sarcoma lung metastases. Given that patients in the high-risk group have a projected OS of <20% at 5 years, this risk score, after external validation, will be an important tool to aid in preoperative counseling and consideration for multimodal therapy.

A novel preoperative risk score to optimize patient selection for performing concomitant liver resection with cytoreductive surgery/HIPEC.

BACKGROUND: While parenchymal hepatic metastases were previously considered a contraindication to cytoreductive surgery (CRS) and heated intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC), liver resection (LR) is increasingly performed with CRS/HIPEC. METHODS: Patients from the US HIPEC Collaborative (2000-2017) with invasive appendiceal or colorectal adenocarcinoma undergoing primary, curative intent CRS/HIPEC with CC0-1 resection were included. LR was defined as a formal parenchymal resection. Primary endpoints were postoperative complications and overall survival (OS). RESULTS: A total of 658 patients were included. About 83 (15%) underwent LR of colorectal (58%) or invasive appendiceal (42%) metastases. LR patients had more complications (81% vs. 60%; p = .001), greater number of complications (2.3 vs. 1.5; p < .001) per patient and required more reoperations (22% vs. 11%; p = .007) and readmissions (39% vs. 25%; p = .014) than non-LR patients. LR patients had decreased OS (2-year OS 62% vs. 79%, p < .001), even when accounting for peritoneal carcinomatosis index and histology type. Preoperative factors associated with decreased OS on multivariable analysis in LR patients included age < 60 years (HR, 3.61; 95% CI, 1.10-11.81), colorectal histology (HR, 3.84; 95% CI, 1.69-12.65), and multiple liver tumors (HR, 3.45; 95% CI, 1.21-9.85) (all p < .05). When assigning one point for each factor, there was an incremental decrease in 2-year survival as the risk score increased from 0 to 3 (0: 100%; 1: 91%; 2: 58%; 3: 0%). CONCLUSIONS: As CRS/HIPEC + LR has become more common, we created a simple risk score to stratify patients considered for CRS/HIPEC + LR. These data aid in striking the balance between an increased perioperative complication profile with the potential for improvement in OS.

Molecular and Genetic Markers in Appendiceal Mucinous Tumors: A Systematic Review.

INTRODUCTION: The role of somatic mutation profiling in the management of appendiceal mucinous tumors (AMTs) is evolving. Using a systematic review, we identified somatic alterations (SAs) that comprise histopathologic types of AMTs and those associated with aggressive clinical phenotypes. METHODS: MEDLINE/PubMed was searched for studies on AMTs including molecular markers or genomic alterations, published between 1990 and 2018. Studies were grouped under low- and high-grade histological type for primary and metastatic tumors. RESULTS: Twenty-one studies involving 1099 tumors (primary/metastatic) were identified. Seven studies involving 101 primary low-grade AMTs identified KRAS (76.5%) as the predominant SA. Four studies noted GNAS in 45.2% of 42 low-grade appendiceal mucinous neoplasms, and KRAS was identified in 74.4% of 14 studies with 238 low-grade pseudomyxoma peritonei (PMP). GNAS was noted in 56% of 101 tumors and TP53 was noted in only 9.7% of 31 tumors. Primary high-grade tumors demonstrated lower SAs in KRAS (50.4% of 369 tumors) and GNAS (27.8% of 97 tumors), and higher SAs in TP53 (26.0% of 123 tumors). In high-grade PMP, SAs were noted in KRAS (55.0% of 200 tumors), GNAS (35.0% of 60 tumors), and TP53 (26.3% of 19 tumors). No clear association was noted between SAs and survival. CONCLUSIONS: KRAS and GNAS are frequently altered in low-grade AMTs, while TP53 is frequently altered in high-grade AMTs, with no apparent change in expression between primary and metastatic tumors. Although SAs may provide valuable insights into variability in tumor biology, larger studies utilizing clinically annotated genomic databases from multi-institutional consortiums are needed to improve their identification and clinical applicability.

Primary Liver Cancer: An NCDB Analysis of Overall Survival and Margins After Hepatectomy.

BACKGROUND: Intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (ICC) and hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) constitute the majority of primary liver cancers. This retrospective review aimed to determine whether site of care is a significant predictor of patient outcome after hepatectomy as measured by overall survival, hazard ratios (HRs), and resection margin status. METHODS: Data regarding patients with a new diagnosis of ICC and HCC who underwent hepatectomy were analyzed from the national cancer database. The patients were divided into two cohorts: those receiving treatment at academic cancer centers (ACCs) and those receiving treatment at community cancer centers (CCCs). The study adjusted for confounding variables and selection bias using propensity score matching. Median overall survival (months), hazard ratios, and resection margin status (R0, R1/R2, unknown) were examined. RESULTS: The inclusion criteria were met by 10,463 patients. After propensity matching, 5600 patients remained, with half receiving treatment at ACCs and half at CCCs. Median overall survival from the date of diagnosis for patients undergoing hepatectomy was longer at ACCs than at CCCs (28.3 vs 24.8 months; p < 0.001). Additionally, multivariable Cox proportional hazards models showed that treatment at CCCs was associated with poorer survival than treatment at ACCs (HR, 1.226; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.142-1.316; p < 0.0001). Treatment facility designation also was a predictive indicator of resection margin status, with patients at CCCs exhibiting higher odds of R1/R2 resections (odds ratio [OR], 1.41; 95% CI, 1.19-1.67; p < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: Hepatectomy for ICC and HCC performed at ACCs was associated with improved outcomes compared with CCCs. Centralization of care to ACCs may lead to improved patient outcomes.

Repeat Cytoreductive Surgery and Hyperthermic Intraperitoneal Chemotherapy Is Not Associated with Prohibitive Complications: Results of a Multiinstitutional Retrospective Study.

BACKGROUND: Cytoreductive surgery and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (CRS/HIPEC) is offered to select patients with peritoneal metastases. In instances of recurrence/progression, a repeat CRS/HIPEC may be considered. The perioperative morbidity and the potential oncologic benefits are not well described. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We performed a retrospective analysis of a multiinstitutional database to assess the perioperative outcomes following repeat CRS/HIPEC (repeat). Kaplan-Meier and Cox estimates were used to assess survival. RESULTS: In the entire cohort, 2157 patients were analyzed, with 158 (7.3%) in the repeat cohort. The rate of complete cytoreduction was 89.8% versus 83.0% in initial versus repeat groups. The overall incidence of major complications was similar (26.3% vs. 30.7%); however, reoperation was more common in the repeat group. Perioperative outcomes such as length of stay and nonhome discharge were not significantly different. For the entire cohort, 5-year overall survival (OS) was 56.0% in the initial group and 59.5% in the repeat group. In patients with only appendiceal cancer, we observed a 5-year OS of 64.0% in the initial group compared with 67.3% in the repeat cohort. For patients with appendiceal cancer who developed a recurrence/progression, median OS was 36 months in the no repeat operation group compared with 73 months for those that did. Multivariable regression demonstrated that completeness of cytoreduction and tumor grade were associated with OS, but repeat operation was not. CONCLUSIONS: Repeat CRS/HIPEC is not associated with prohibitive risk. Survival is possibly improved, and therefore, repeat operation should be considered in selected patients with recurrent or progressive disease.

The Intersection of Age and Tumor Biology with Postoperative Outcomes in Patients After Cytoreductive Surgery and HIPEC.

BACKGROUND: Patient age is a significant factor in preoperative selection for major abdominal surgery. The association of age, tumor biology, and postoperative outcomes in patients undergoing cytoreductive surgery (CRS) and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) remains ill-defined. METHODS: Retrospective analysis was performed for patients who underwent a CCR0/1 CRS/HIPEC from the US HIPEC Collaborative Database (2000-2017). Age was categorized into < 65 or ≥ 65 years. Primary outcome was postoperative major complications. Secondary outcomes were non-home discharge (NHD) and readmission. Analysis was stratified by disease histology: non-invasive (appendiceal LAMN/HAMN), and invasive (appendiceal/colorectal adenocarcinoma). RESULTS: Of 1090 patients identified, 22% were ≥ 65 (n = 240), 59% were female (n = 646), 25% had non-invasive (n = 276) and 51% had invasive (n = 555) histology. Median PCI was 13 (IQR 7-20). Patients ≥ 65 had a higher rate of major complications (37 vs 26%, p = 0.02), NHD (12 vs 5%, p < 0.01), and readmission (28 vs 22%, p = 0.05), compared to those < 65. For non-invasive histology, age ≥ 65 was not associated with major complications or NHD on multivariable analysis. For invasive histology, when accounting for PCI and CCR, age ≥ 65 was associated with major complications (OR 2.04, 95% CI 1.16-3.59, p = 0.01). When accounting for major complications, age ≥ 65 was associated with NHD (OR 2.54, 95% CI 1.08-5.98, p = 0.03). Age ≥ 65 was not predictive of readmission for any histology when accounting for major complications. CONCLUSIONS: Age ≥ 65 years is an independent predictor for postoperative major complications and non-home discharge for invasive histology, but not non-invasive histology. These data inform preoperative counseling, risk stratification, and early discharge planning.

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.

Predictors of Non-home Discharge after Cytoreductive Surgery and Hyperthermic Intraperitoneal Chemotherapy.

BACKGROUND: Using a national database of cytoreductive surgery and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (CRS/HIPEC) recipients, we sought to determine risk factors for nonhome discharge (NHD) in a cohort of patients. METHODS: Patients undergoing CRS/HIPEC at any one of 12 participating sites between 2000 and 2017 were identified. Univariate analysis was used to compare the characteristics, operative variables, and postoperative complications of patients discharged home and patients with NHD. Multivariate logistic regression was used to identify independent risk factors of NHD. RESULTS: The cohort included 1593 patients, of which 70 (4.4%) had an NHD. The median [range] peritoneal cancer index in our cohort was 14 [0-39]. Significant predictors of NHD identified in our regression analysis were advanced age (odds ratio [OR], 1.09; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.05-1.12; P < 0.001), an American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) score of 4 (OR, 2.87; 95% CI, 1.21-6.83; P = 0.017), appendiceal histology (OR, 3.14; 95% CI 1.57-6.28; P = 0.001), smoking history (OR, 3.22; 95% CI, 1.70-6.12; P < 0.001), postoperative total parenteral nutrition (OR, 3.14; 95% CI, 1.70-5.81; P < 0.001), respiratory complications (OR, 7.40; 95% CI, 3.36-16.31; P < 0.001), wound site infections (OR, 3.12; 95% CI, 1.58-6.17; P = 0.001), preoperative hemoglobin (OR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.70-0.94; P = 0.006), and total number of complications (OR, 1.41; 95% CI, 1.16-1.73; P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Early identification of patients at high risk for NHD after CRS/HIPEC is key for preoperative and postoperative counseling and resource allocation, as well as minimizing hospital-acquired conditions and associated health care costs.

Comparison of overall survival in gallbladder carcinoma at academic versus community cancer centers: An analysis of the National Cancer Data Base.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Gallbladder carcinoma (GBC) has a poor prognosis. Studies demonstrated that teaching facilities may provide a lower risk of mortality in patients undergoing pancreatic and colon resection vs nonteaching facilities. We hypothesized that survival rates are higher in academic cancer centers (ACCs) vs community cancer centers (CCCs). METHODS: Patients with all stages of GBC were identified from the National Cancer Database (2007-2012). Propensity score matching adjusted for selection bias. Descriptive statistics were calculated for all variables. Overall survival (OS) was compared by facility type (ACC vs CCC) and case volume (low vs high) via multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression. RESULTS: A total of 7967 patients met the inclusion criteria. Following propensity matching, 2801 patients were analyzed from each facility type. Median OS following surgery was higher for ACC (20.99 months, 95% confidence interval [CI], 19.61-22.64, P = .002) than CCC (17.68 months, 95% CI, 16.46-19.25). Following Cox modeling, GBC treatment at ACCs was a protective factor for OS (adjusted hazard ratio 0.876, 95% CI, 0.801-0.958, P = .004). DISCUSSION: GBC treatment at ACCs is an independent predictor of OS. High volume ACCs are associated with improved OS compared with low volume ACCs. The site of care and case volume in ACCs may contribute to improved survival outcomes.

Analysis of textbook outcomes among patients undergoing resection of retroperitoneal sarcoma: A multi-institutional analysis of the US Sarcoma Collaborative.

BACKGROUND: The novel composite metric textbook outcome (TO) has increasingly been used as a quality indicator but has not been reported among patients undergoing surgical resection for retroperitoneal sarcoma (RPS) using multi-institutional collaborative data. METHODS: All patients who underwent resection for RPS between 2000 to 2016 from eight academic institutions were included. TO was defined as a patient with R0/R1 resection that discharged to home and was without transfusion, reoperation, grade ≥2 complications, hospital-stay >50th percentile, or 90-day readmission or mortality. Univariate and multivariable analyses were performed. RESULTS: Among 627 patients, 56.1% were female and the median age was 59 years. A minority of patients achieved a TO (34.9%). Factors associated with achieving a TO were tumor size <20 cm and low tumor grade, while ASA class ≥3, history of a prior cardiac event, resection of left colon/rectum, distal pancreatic resection, major venous resection and drain placement were associated with not achieving a TO (all P < .05). Achievement of a TO was associated with improved survival (median:12.7 vs 5.9 years, P < .01). CONCLUSIONS: Among patients undergoing resection for RPS, failure to achieve TO is common and associated with significantly worse survival. The use of TO may inform patient expectations and serve as a measure for patient-level hospital performance.

Outcomes of palliative-intent surgery in retroperitoneal sarcoma-Results from the US Sarcoma Collaborative.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Outcomes of palliative-intent surgery in retroperitoneal sarcomas (RPS) are not well understood. This study aims to define indications for and outcomes after palliative-intent RPS resection. METHODS: Using a retrospective 8-institution database, patients undergoing resection of primary/recurrent RPS with palliative intent were identified. Logistic regression and Cox-proportional hazards models were constructed to analyze factors associated with postoperative complications and overall survival (OS). RESULTS: Of 3088 patients, 70 underwent 87 palliative-intent procedures. Most common indications were pain (26%) and bowel obstruction (21%). Dedifferentiated liposarcoma (n = 17, 24%), leiomyosarcoma (n = 13, 19%) were predominant subtypes. Median OS was 10.69 months (IQR, 3.91-23.23). R2 resection (OR, 8.60; CI, 1.42-52.15; P = .019), larger tumors (OR, 10.87; CI, 1.44-82.11; P = .021) and low preoperative albumin (OR, 0.14; CI, 0.04-0.57; P = .006) were associated with postoperative complications. Postoperative complications (HR, 1.95; CI, 1.02-3.71; P = .043) and high-grade histology (HR, 6.56; CI, 1.72-25.05; P = .006) rather than resection status were associated with reduced OS. However, in R2-resected patients, development of postoperative complications significantly reduced survival (P = .042). CONCLUSIONS: Postoperative complications and high-grade histology rather than resection status impacts survival in palliative-intent RPS resections. Given the higher incidence of postoperative complications which may diminish survival, palliative-intent R2 resection should be offered only after cautious consideration.

Neoadjuvant radiation improves margin-negative resection rates in extremity sarcoma but not survival.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Radiation improves limb salvage in extremity sarcomas. Timing of radiation therapy remains under investigation. We sought to evaluate the effects of neoadjuvant radiation (NAR) on surgery and survival of patients with extremity sarcomas. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A multi-institutional database was used to identify patients with extremity sarcomas undergoing surgical resection from 2000-2016. Patients were categorized by treatment strategy: surgery alone, adjuvant radiation (AR), or NAR. Survival, recurrence, limb salvage, and surgical margin status was analyzed. RESULTS: A total of 1483 patients were identified. Most patients receiving radiotherapy had high-grade tumors (82% NAR vs 81% AR vs 60% surgery; P < .001). The radiotherapy groups had more limb-sparing operations (98% AR vs 94% NAR vs 87% surgery; P < .001). NAR resulted in negative margin resections (90% NAR vs 79% surgery vs 75% AR; P < .0001). There were fewer local recurrences in the radiation groups (14% NAR vs 17% AR vs 27% surgery; P = .001). There was no difference in overall or recurrence-free survival between the three groups (OS, P = .132; RFS, P = .227). CONCLUSION: In this large study, radiotherapy improved limb salvage rates and decreased local recurrences. Receipt of NAR achieves more margin-negative resections however this did not improve local recurrence or survival rates over.

Institutional variation in recovery after cytoreductive surgery and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy: An opportunity for enhanced recovery pathways.

BACKGROUND: Variations in care have been demonstrated both within and among institutions in many clinical settings. By standardizing perioperative practices, Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) pathways reduce variation in perioperative care. We sought to characterize the variation in cytoreductive surgery (CRS)/heated intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) perioperative practices among experienced US medical centers. METHODS: Data from the US HIPEC Collaborative represents a retrospective multi-institutional cohort study of CRS and CRS/HIPEC procedures performed from 12 major academic institutions. Patient characteristics and perioperative practices were reported and compared. Institutional variation was analyzed using hierarchical mixed-effects linear (continuous outcomes) or logistic (binary outcomes) regression models. RESULTS: A total of 2372 operations were included. CRS/HIPEC was performed most commonly for appendiceal histologies (64.2%). The rate of complications (overall 56.3%, range: 31.8-70.9) and readmissions (overall 20.6%, range: 8.9-33.3) varied by institution (P < .001). Institution-level variation in perioperative practice patterns existed among measured ERAS pathway process/outcomes (P < .001). The percentages of variation with each process/outcome measure attributable solely to institutional practices ranged from 0.6% to 66.6%. CONCLUSIONS: Significant variation exists in the perioperative care of patients undergoing CRS/HIPEC at major US academic institutions. These findings provide a strong rationale for the investigation of best practices in CRS/HIPEC patients.

The impact of HIPEC vs. EPIC for the treatment of mucinous appendiceal carcinoma: a study from the US HIPEC collaborative.

INTRODUCTION: Mucinous appendiceal carcinoma is a rare malignancy that commonly spreads to the peritoneum leading to peritoneal metastases. Complete cytoreduction with perioperative intraperitoneal chemotherapy (PIC) is the mainstay of treatment, administered as either hyperthermic intra peritoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) or early post-operative intraperitoneal chemotherapy (EPIC). Our goal was to assess the perioperative and long term survival outcomes associated with these two PIC methods. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients with mucinous appendiceal carcinoma were identified in the US HIPEC Collaborative database from 12 academic institutions. Patient demographics, clinical characteristics, and survival outcomes were compared among patients who underwent HIPEC vs. EPIC with inverse probability weighting (IPW) used for adjustment. RESULTS: Among 921 patients with mucinous appendiceal carcinoma, 9% underwent EPIC while 91% underwent HIPEC. There was no difference in Grade III-V complications between the two groups (18.5% for HIPEC vs. 15.0% for EPIC, p=.43) though patients who underwent HIPEC had higher rates of readmissions (21.2% vs. 8.8%, p<.01). Additionally, PIC method was not an independent predictor for overall survival (OS) or recurrence-free survival (RFS) after adjustment on multivariable analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with mucinous appendiceal carcinoma, both EPIC and HIPEC appear to be associated with similar perioperative and long-term outcomes.