The Effect of Laparoscopic Gastric Ischemic Preconditioning Prior to Esophagectomy on Anastomotic Stricture Rate and Comparison with Esophagectomy-Alone Controls.

BACKGROUND: Benign anastomotic stricture is a recognized complication following esophagectomy. Laparoscopic gastric ischemic preconditioning (LGIP) prior to esophagectomy has been associated with decreased anastomotic leak rates; however, its effect on stricture and the need for subsequent endoscopic intervention is not well studied. METHODS: This was a case-control study at an academic medical center using consecutive patients undergoing oncologic esophagectomies (July 2012-July 2022). Our institution initiated an LGIP protocol on 1 January 2021. The primary outcome was the occurrence of stricture within 1 year of esophagectomy, while secondary outcomes were stricture severity and frequency of interventions within the 6 months following stricture. Bivariable comparisons were performed using Chi-square, Fisher's exact, or Mann-Whitney U tests. Multivariable regression controlling for confounders was performed to generate risk-adjust odds ratios and to identify the independent effect of LGIP. RESULTS: Of 253 esophagectomies, 42 (16.6%) underwent LGIP prior to esophagectomy. There were 45 (17.7%) anastomotic strictures requiring endoscopic intervention, including three patients who underwent LGIP and 42 who did not. Median time to stricture was 144 days. Those who underwent LGIP were significantly less likely to develop anastomotic stricture (7.1% vs. 19.9%; p = 0.048). After controlling for confounders, this difference was no longer significant (odds ratio 0.46, 95% confidence interval 0.14-1.82; p = 0.29). Of those who developed stricture, there was a trend toward less severe strictures and decreased need for endoscopic dilation in the LGIP group (all p < 0.20). CONCLUSION: LGIP may reduce the rate and severity of symptomatic anastomotic stricture following esophagectomy. A multi-institutional trial evaluating the effect of LGIP on stricture and other anastomotic complications is warranted.

The deimplementation of laboratory testing in low-risk patients as recommended by the American society of anesthesiologists: An ACS-NSQIP longitudinal analysis.

BACKGROUND: In 2012, the American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) published guidelines recommending against routine preoperative laboratory testing for low-risk patients to reduce unnecessary medical expenditures. The aim of this study was to assess the change in routine preoperative laboratory testing in low-risk versus higher-risk patients before and after release of these guidelines. METHODS: The ACS-NSQIP database, 2005-2018, was separated into low-risk versus higher-risk patients based upon a previously published stratification. The guideline implementation date was defined as January 2013. Changes in preoperative laboratory testing over time were compared between low- and higher-risk patients. A difference-in-differences model was applied. The primary outcome included any laboratory test obtained ≤90 days prior to surgery. RESULTS: Of 7,507,991 patients, 972,431 (13.0%) were defined as low-risk and 6,535,560 (87.0%) higher-risk. Use of any preoperative laboratory test declined in low-risk patients from 66.5% before to 59.6% after guidelines, a 6.9 percentage point reduction, versus 93.0%-91.9% in higher-risk patients, a 1.1 percentage point reduction (p < 0.0001, comparing percentage point reductions). After risk-adjustment, the adjusted odds ratio for having any preoperative laboratory test after versus before the guidelines was 0.77 (95% CI 0.76-0.78) in low-risk versus 0.93 (0.92-0.94) in higher-risk patients. In low-risk patients, lack of any preoperative testing was not associated with worse outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: While a majority of low-risk patients continue to receive preoperative laboratory testing not recommended by the ASA, there has been a decline after implementation of guidelines. Continued effort should be directed at the deimplementation of routine preoperative laboratory testing for low-risk patients.

Surgeon Perspectives on Determinants of Same-Day Mastectomy: A Roadmap for Implementing Change.

BACKGROUND: Same-day discharge after mastectomy without immediate reconstruction (MwoR) has been shown to be safe, with improved patient satisfaction when compared with patients discharged 1 or more days after surgery. Nevertheless, only 16% of patients undergoing MwoR in Michigan are discharged on the day of surgery, with significant variation between facilities (3-88%). Our objective was to explore determinants of same-day discharge and offer strategies for broader implementation of this practice. METHODS: We conducted semi-structured interviews with surgeons performing MwoR across the state of Michigan. Recruitment utilized purposeful and snowball sampling methods. The Tailored Implementation in Chronic Disease (TICD) framework was used to inform the creation of the interview guide. Interviews were transcribed and then analyzed using directed content analysis guided by the TICD framework. Salient determinants were organized into patient, provider, and system-level factors. RESULTS: Participants (n = 26) included general surgeons, breast surgeons, and surgical oncologists. Most surgeons (n = 18, 69%) reported that they discharged fewer than 60% of patients the same day after MwoR. The most common barriers included patient knowledge at the patient level; awareness of evidence, surgeon dogma, and peer influence at the provider level; and team processes and operating room logistics at the system level. CONCLUSION: We identified surgeon-defined determinants of same-day discharge after MwoR. For the identified barriers, potential implementation strategies could include incorporation of preoperative drain teachings for patients, utilizing consensus statements and opinion leaders to disseminate evidence supporting same-day mastectomies, and conducting workshops with relevant stakeholders to establish consistent facility practice patterns among surgical teams.

De-implementation of Axillary Dissection in Women Undergoing Mastectomy for Breast Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Completion axillary lymph node dissection (cALND) was standard treatment for breast cancer with positive sentinel lymph nodes (SLNs) until 2011, when data from the Z11 and AMAROS trials challenged its survival benefit in early stage breast cancer. We assessed the contribution of patient, tumor, and facility factors on cALND use in patients undergoing mastectomy and SLN biopsy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Using the National Cancer Database, patients diagnosed from 2012 to 2017 who underwent upfront mastectomy and SLN biopsy with at least one positive SLN were included. A multivariable mixed effects logistic regression model was used to determine the effect of patient, tumor, and facility variables on cALND use. Reference effect measures (REM) were used to compare the contribution of general contextual effects (GCE) to variation in cALND use. RESULTS: From 2012 to 2017, the overall use of cALND decreased from 81.3% to 68.0%. Overall, younger patients, larger tumors, higher grade tumors, and tumors with lymphovascular invasion were more likely to undergo cALND. Facility variables, including higher surgical volume and facility location in the Midwest, were associated with increased use of cALND. However, REM results showed that the contribution of GCE to the variation in cALND use exceeded that of the measured patient, tumor, facility, and time variables. CONCLUSIONS: There was a decrease in cALND use during the study period. However, cALND was frequently performed in women after mastectomy found to have a positive SLN. There is high variability in cALND use, mainly driven by interfacility practice variation rather than specific high-risk patient and/or tumor characteristics.

Alterations in sweet taste function in adults with diabetes mellitus: a systematic review and potential implications.

Diet therapy for diabetes involves controlling carbohydrate intake in order to manage blood glucose concentrations. Simple carbohydrates, like sucrose, quickly and potently raise blood glucose when ingested, and are typically perceived as sweet. Sweetness is innately pleasurable and contributes to the positive hedonic evaluation of foods and beverages. There is some evidence to suggest that individuals with diabetes mellitus may be less able to detect sweetness, which could result in increased intake and, thus, more difficulty managing blood glucose. A systematic review that included PubMed, PsycInfo, and Embase databases was conducted. Inclusion criteria included observational studies that investigated the sweet taste function of adults with and without diabetes mellitus (Prospero CRD42021225058). The quality of the final included studies was assessed using the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics' Evidence Analysis Library Quality Criteria Checklist: Primary Research tool. Eighteen studies that compared sweet taste thresholds, intensity ratings, or hedonic responses in adults both with and without diabetes were included. Differences in sweet taste thresholds, both detection and recognition, indicated that individuals with diabetes were less sensitive than healthy controls. The same findings were observed for intensity ratings. Only two studies examined hedonic responses; results were inconclusive.

Patient Preferences and Satisfaction With Decisions in Stage-III Melanoma: A Mixed Methods Study.

INTRODUCTION: Rapid accumulation of data in surgical and medical oncology has changed the treatment landscape for patients with stage-III melanoma, introducing options for active surveillance and adjuvant systemic therapy; however, these options have increased the complexity of decision making. METHODS: We conducted an explanatory sequential mixed-methods study consisting of surveys and semistructured interviews among patients diagnosed with stage-III melanoma at a single institution from August 2019 to December 2021. The survey included the validated 30-point satisfaction with decision scale (SWD). The interview guide was developed using a shared decision-making framework. RESULTS: Twenty-six participants completed the survey (response rate 40%) and 17 were interviewed. In the survey, 69% of participants reported receiving a recommendation for active surveillance and 23% received a recommendation for adjuvant systemic therapy. Overall SWD for treatment of the lymph node basin and adjuvant systemic therapy was high at 27.94 and 26.21 out of 30, respectively. In the interviews, participants stressed the importance of the physician's recommendation as well as the desire to minimize intervention and avoid potential side effects in their decisions. However, they demonstrated persistent knowledge gaps in their understanding of the treatment options. CONCLUSIONS: Like other cancer types where the option for active surveillance exists, the physician's recommendation is influential in shaping decisions for patients with stage-III melanoma. Physicians can improve shared decision making in this complex treatment landscape through improved multidisciplinary collaboration and mechanisms for ensuring patients' understanding of the treatment options.

Avoiding Overtreatment of Women ≥70 With Early-Stage Breast Cancer: A Provider-Level Deimplementation Strategy.

INTRODUCTION: National guidelines recommend against routine axillary staging with sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) and adjuvant radiotherapy (RT) in women ≥70 y with early-stage, hormone receptor-positive, HER2-negative breast cancer and clinically negative axilla; however, these practices remain common. METHODS: We conducted a prospective pilot study from August 2021 to 2022 using an intervention targeting breast surgeons and radiation oncologists in Michigan that aimed to reduce SLNB and RT in eligible patients. The intervention consisted of (1) a geriatric assessment, (2) an assessment of the patient's medical maximizing-minimizing preferences, and (3) a tailored script with counterpoints to reasons patients commonly seek SLNB or RT. At the end of the study period, participants completed a survey providing feedback with the primary outcomes being: acceptability, appropriateness, feasibility, and intention and motivation to use the materials based on validated measures. RESULTS: Participants (n = 23) included 15 breast surgeons and 8 radiation oncologists. Collectively, the materials were used with 115 patients. Considering all materials holistically, acceptability, appropriateness, and feasibility of the intervention were high; participants also intended and were motivated to use the intervention. Scores across all measures were highest for the geriatric assessment and lowest for the tailored script. The major barriers to using the intervention were limited time and instances of disagreement on treatment recommendations among surgeons and radiation oncologists. CONCLUSIONS: The omission of SLNB and adjuvant RT should be discussed in appropriately selected patients. A multifaceted provider-level deimplementation strategy may be an effective means for achieving this goal.

Students' Perspectives on Basic and Clinical Science Integration When Step 1 is Administered After the Core Clerkships.

Phenomenon: According to adult learning theories, effective cognitive integration of basic and clinical science may promote the transfer of knowledge to patient care. The placement of the U.S. Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE) Step 1 after the core clerkships is one strategy intended to facilitate cognitive integration, though learner experiences with this model are unexplored. The purpose of this study is to understand students' perspectives on basic and clinical science integration in a post-clerkship Step 1 curriculum. Approach: Focus groups were conducted between August and September 2020 with senior medical students from the University of California, San Francisco School of Medicine and University of Michigan Medical School. Data were analyzed using a constructivist approach to thematic analysis. Findings: Thirty-three students participated in six focus groups. Participants described multiple barriers to cognitive integration in the clerkship learning environment, though they also identified examples of teaching and learning that facilitated integration. Early in their clerkships, students struggled to integrate because of their tenuous basic science foundation, cognitive overload, and difficulty perceiving the relevance of basic science to patient care. They felt that educators primarily focused on clinical science, and many basic science teaching sessions during clerkships felt irrelevant to patient care. However, students also described experiences that made the connection between basic and clinical science more explicit, including modeling by educators and clerkship learning activities that more overtly encouraged the application of basic science to clinical care. In addition, the return to basic science studying during the post-clerkship dedicated Step 1 study period offered powerful integration opportunities. These facilitators of cognitive integration helped students recognize the value of integration for enduring learning. Insights: There are myriad barriers to cognitive integration of basic and clinical science during clerkships in a post-clerkship Step 1 curriculum. The relevance of basic science to patient care needs to be made more explicit to students through modeling by clinician educators to augment the potential benefits of curricular change. The post-clerkship Step 1 study period appears to offer a unique opportunity for cognitive integration later in a learner's trajectory that may be related to curricular design. When learners recognize the applicability of basic science to patient care, they may more intentionally transfer basic science knowledge to clinical practice.

Facility-Level Variation of Low-Value Breast Cancer Treatments in Older Women with Early-Stage Breast Cancer: Analysis of a Statewide Claims Registry.

BACKGROUND: Since 2004, national guidelines have supported the omission of sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) and radiotherapy for women ≥ 70 years of age with early-stage, hormone receptor-positive (HR+) breast cancer, but many women continue to receive at least one of these services. Provider- and patient-level factors may contribute to persistent utilization, but the role of facility-level factors is unknown. We aimed to determine facility-level variation of SLNB and adjuvant radiotherapy utilization in older women with early-stage, HR+ breast cancer undergoing breast-conserving surgery (BCS). Additionally, we aimed to explore factors associated with SLNB and radiotherapy utilization and the intra-facility correlation in their utilization. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study using a statewide registry of claims data. We included women ≥70 years of age diagnosed with breast cancer who underwent BCS from 2012 to 2019 at 80 hospitals in the Michigan Value Collaborative. The main outcome was inter-facility rates and variation of SLNB and radiotherapy, as well as intra-facility correlation in their utilization. RESULTS: The cohort included 7253 women (median age 77 years). Only 20% (n = 1440) underwent BCS alone, whereas 71% (n = 5122) underwent SLNB and 52% (n = 3793) received radiotherapy. Inter-facility rates of SLNB ranged from 35 to 82% (median 70%), and radiotherapy ranged from 19 to 72% (median 49%). SLNB and radiotherapy were positively correlated (r = 0.27, p = 0.016). CONCLUSIONS: SLNB and radiotherapy rates remain high with significant variation in utilization at the facility level. High utilizers of SLNB are likely to be high utilizers of radiotherapy, suggesting the opportunity for strategic targeting of these facilities and their clinicians.

Review of Cancer-Specific Quality Measures Promoting the Avoidance of Low-Value Care.

BACKGROUND: With rising healthcare costs and campaigns aimed at avoiding low-value care, reducing cancer overtreatment has emerged as an important measure of cancer care quality. The extent to which avoidance of low-value care has been incorporated in cancer-specific quality measures is unknown. We aimed to identify and characterize cancer quality measures that promote the avoidance of low-value care, and identify gaps that may guide future measure development. METHODS: We systematically identified cancer-specific quality measures from leading quality measure organizations [e.g., National Quality Forum (NQF), National Quality Measures Clearinghouse (NQMC)]. We reviewed measures promoting the avoidance of low-value cancer care and subclassified them into disease site- or non-disease site-specific categories and the phase of care they targeted. RESULTS: We reviewed 313 quality measures from six organizations. Of these, 18% (n = 55) focused on avoidance of low-value care. Quality measures focused on end-of-life care were most likely to focus on low-value care [n = 13 (50%)], followed by breast [n = 12 (18%)], lung [n = 9 (31%)], colon [n = 8 (20%)], prostate [n = 5 (38%)], general cancer care [n = 4 (3%)], symptoms and toxicities [n = 2 (40%)], and palliative cancer care [n = 2 (11%)] measures. The phases of care quality measures targeted included low-value screening [n = 5 (9%)], diagnostic testing and staging [n = 7 (13%)], treatment [n = 19 (34%)], surveillance [n = 6 (11%)], and clinical outcomes [n = 18 (33%)]. All categories had a treatment-specific quality measure, but no category had a representative measure for every phase of care. DISCUSSION: A minority of cancer quality measures are aimed at avoiding low-value care, and multiple evidence-based recommendations targeting low-value care have not been incorporated.

Incremental Spending Associated with Low-Value Treatments in Older Women with Breast Cancer.

BACKGROUND: In most women ≥ 70 years old with hormone-receptor-positive breast cancer, axillary staging and adjuvant radiotherapy provide no survival advantage over surgery and hormone therapy alone. Despite recommendations for their omission, sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) and adjuvant radiotherapy rates remain high. While treatment side effects are well documented, less is known about the incremental spending associated with SLNB and adjuvant radiotherapy. METHODS: Using a statewide multipayer claims registry, we examined spending associated with breast cancer treatment in a retrospective cohort of women ≥ 70 years old undergoing surgery. RESULTS: 9074 women ≥70 years old underwent breast cancer resection between 2012 and 2019, with 78% (n = 7122) receiving SLNB and/or adjuvant radiotherapy within 90 days of surgery. Women undergoing SLNB were more likely to receive radiation (51% vs. 28%; p < 0.001 and OR = 2.68). Average 90-day spending varied substantially based upon treatment received, ranging from US$10,367 (breast-conserving surgery alone) to US$27,370 (mastectomy with SLNB and adjuvant radiotherapy). The relative increases in 90-day treatment spending in the breast-conserving surgery cohort was 65% for SLNB, 82% for adjuvant radiotherapy, and 120% for both treatments. CONCLUSIONS: SLNB and adjuvant radiotherapy have significant spending implications in older women with breast cancer, even though they are unlikely to improve survival.

Using Tailored Messages to Target Overuse of Low-Value Breast Cancer Care in Older Women.

BACKGROUND: National recommendations allow for the omission of sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) and post-lumpectomy radiotherapy in women ≥ 70 y/o with early-stage, hormone-receptor positive invasive breast cancer, but these therapies remain common. Previous work demonstrates an individual's maximizing-minimizing trait-an inherent preference for more or less medical care-may influence the preference for low-value care. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We recruited an equal number of women ≥ 70 yrs who were maximizers, minimizers, or neutral based on a validated measure between September 2020 and November 2020. Participants were presented a hypothetical breast cancer diagnosis before randomization to one of three follow-up messages: maximizer-tailored, minimizer-tailored, or neutral. Tailored messaging aimed to redirect maximizers and minimizers toward declining SLNB and radiotherapy. The main outcome measure was predicted probability of choosing SLNB or radiotherapy. RESULTS: The final analytical sample (n = 1600) was 515 maximizers (32%), 535 neutral (33%) and 550 (34%) minimizers. Higher maximizing tendency positively correlated with electing both SLNB and radiotherapy on logistic regression (P < 0.01). Any tailoring (maximizer- or minimizer-tailored) reduced preference for SLNB in maximizing and neutral women but had no effect in minimizing women. Tailoring had no impact on radiotherapy decision, except for an increased probability of minimizers electing radiotherapy when presented with maximizer-tailored messaging. CONCLUSIONS: Maximizing-minimizing tendencies are associated with treatment preferences among women facing a hypothetical breast cancer diagnosis. Targeted messaging may facilitate avoidance of low-value breast cancer care, particularly for SLNB.

Gaps in Online Breast Cancer Treatment Information for Older Women.

BACKGROUND: For women older than 70 years with early-stage breast cancer, the routine use of sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) and adjuvant radiotherapy offers no overall survival benefit and may be perceived as undesirable by many women. National guidelines allow possible omission of these practices for older women. This study aimed to assess the availability of web-based educational materials targeting older women and their age-specific treatment recommendations. METHODS: The study systematically assessed the websites of the top 25 "Best Hospitals for Cancer" ranked by the U.S. News & World Report, as well as the websites of four prominent national cancer organizations. RESULTS: Websites for the leading cancer hospitals and national cancer organizations contain extremely limited information directed toward older patients with breast cancer. Both SLNB and adjuvant radiotherapy are described as treatments "typically," "most often," or "usually" used in combination with breast-conserving surgery without circumstances noted for possible omission. Specifically, no hospital website and only one national organization in this study included information on the recommendation to avoid routine SLNB. Only two hospitals and two national organizations included information suggesting possible omission of adjuvant radiotherapy for patients older than 70 years. CONCLUSION: The absence of online material for older patients with breast cancer represents a gap potentially contributing to overtreatment by framing SLNB and adjuvant radiotherapy as necessary. Informational resources available to women aged 70 years or older may aid in informed physician-patient communication and decision-making, which may reduce SLNB and adjuvant radiotherapy for patients who might opt out of these procedures if fully informed about them.

Medical Maximizing-Minimizing Preferences in Relation to Low-Value Services for Older Women with Hormone Receptor-Positive Breast Cancer: A Qualitative Study.

BACKGROUND: Multiple studies have demonstrated the safety of omitting therapies in older women with breast cancer. Despite de-implementation guidelines, up to 65% of older women continue to receive one or more of these low-value services. Previous work has investigated the role of both provider and patient attitudes as barriers to de-implementation; however, the importance of the patient's maximizing-minimizing preferences within this context remains unclear. METHODS: In this qualitative study, we conducted 30 semi-structured interviews with women ≥ 70 years of age without a previous diagnosis of breast cancer to elicit perspectives on breast cancer treatment in relation to their medical maximizing-minimizing preferences, as determined by the single-item maximizer-minimizer elicitation question (MM1). We used an interpretive description approach in analysis to produce a thematic survey. RESULTS: Participants were relatively evenly distributed across the MM1 (minimizer, n = 8; neutral, n = 13; maximizer, n = 9). Despite being told of recommendations allowing for the safe omission of sentinel lymph node biopsy and post-lumpectomy radiotherapy, maximizers consistently stated preferences for more medical intervention and aggressive therapies over minimizers and neutral individuals. CONCLUSION: Medical maximizing-minimizing preferences in older women correspond with preferences for breast cancer treatment options that guidelines identify as potentially unnecessary. Increased awareness of patient-level variability in maximizing-minimizing preferences may be valuable in developing optimal intervention strategies to reduce utilization of low-value care.

Exploring Students' Perspectives on Well-Being and the Change of United States Medical Licensing Examination Step 1 to Pass/Fail.

PHENOMENON: In February 2020, the Federation of State Medical Boards and National Board of Medical Examiners announced that Step 1 of the United States Medical Licensing Examination would transition from a three-digit numerical score to a pass/fail outcome. While several opinion pieces have been authored on the potential implications of this change, no study has formally assessed the student voice. The purpose of this study is to explore medical students' perspectives of a pass/fail Step 1, with an emphasis on how this transition will impact their well-being. Approach: We conducted virtual focus groups from May 2020-June 2020 with first- and second-year medical students from six institutions (n = 30). We analyzed focus group content following the inductive and iterative constructivist approach to produce a thematic analysis. Findings: Participants included females (50%), males (47%), and one non-binary student. The majority were Caucasian (57%), followed by Asian (27%), African American (10%), and Hispanic or Latino/a (7%). Overall, students were confused regarding the decision to transition Step 1 to a pass/fail outcome. They expressed anxiety over the uncertainty of how a pass/fail Step 1 may impact future residency applications and pressure to re-allocate time and resources to other academic pursuits that would make them competitive. Students explicitly stated skepticism or disbelief that a pass/fail Step 1 would improve their well-being. Insights: While the decision to make Step 1 pass/fail was in part intended to decrease stress associated with performance on a single high-stakes exam designed for licensing purposes, it has led to increased worries for students, and secondary, unanticipated consequences remain to be seen. In this new setting, it will be imperative to provide clarity regarding the metrics used to evaluate students and to incorporate their perspectives in future policy changes.