Survival Among Patients With High-Risk Gastrointestinal Cancers During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

Importance: Prior reports demonstrated that patients with cancer experienced worse outcomes from pandemic-related stressors and COVID-19 infection. Patients with certain malignant neoplasms, such as high-risk gastrointestinal (HRGI) cancers, may have been particularly affected. Objective: To evaluate disruptions in care and outcomes among patients with HRGI cancers during the COVID-19 pandemic, assessing for signs of long-term changes in populations and survival. Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective cohort study used data from the National Cancer Database to identify patients with HRGI cancer (esophageal, gastric, primary liver, or pancreatic) diagnosed between January 1, 2018, and December 31, 2020. Data were analyzed between August 23 and September 4, 2023. Main Outcome and Measures: Trends in monthly new cases and proportions by stage in 2020 were compared with the prior 2 years. Kaplan-Meier curves and Cox regression were used to assess 1-year mortality in 2020 compared with 2018 to 2019. Proportional monthly trends and multivariable logistic regression were used to evaluate 30-day and 90-day mortality in 2020 compared with prior years. Results: Of the 156 937 patients included in this study, 54 994 (35.0%) were aged 60 to 69 years and 100 050 (63.8%) were men. There was a substantial decrease in newly diagnosed HRGI cancers in March to May 2020, which returned to prepandemic levels by July 2020. For stage, there was a proportional decrease in the diagnosis of stage I (-3.9%) and stage II (-2.3%) disease, with an increase in stage IV disease (7.1%) during the early months of the pandemic. Despite a slight decrease in 1-year survival rates in 2020 (50.7% in 2018 and 2019 vs 47.4% in 2020), survival curves remained unchanged between years (all P > .05). After adjusting for confounders, diagnosis in 2020 was not associated with increased 1-year mortality compared with 2018 to 2019 (hazard ratio, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.97-1.01). The rates of 30-day (2.1% in 2018, 2.0% in 2019, and 2.1% in 2020) and 90-day (4.3% in 2018, 4.4% in 2019, and 4.6% in 2020) operative mortality also remained similar. Conclusions and Relevance: In this retrospective cohort study, a period of underdiagnosis and increase in stage IV disease was observed for HRGI cancers during the pandemic; however, there was no change in 1-year survival or operative mortality. These results demonstrate the risks associated with gaps in care and the tremendous efforts of the cancer community to ensure quality care delivery during the pandemic. Future research should investigate long-term survival changes among all cancer types as additional follow-up data are accrued.

Safety and feasibility of establishing an adjuvant hepatic artery infusion program.

BACKGROUND: Hepatic artery infusion (HAI) is less frequently used in the adjuvant setting for resectable colorectal liver metastasis (CRLM) due to concerns regarding toxicity. Our objective was to evaluate the safety and feasibility of establishing an adjuvant HAI program. METHODS: Patients who underwent HAI pump placement between January 2019 and February 2023 for CRLM were identified. Complications and HAI delivery were compared between patients who received HAI in the unresectable and adjuvant settings. RESULTS: Of 51 patients, 23 received HAI for unresectable CRLM and 28 in the adjuvant setting. Patients with unresectable CRLM more commonly had bilobar disease (n = 23/23 vs n = 18/28, p < 0.01) and more preoperative liver metastases (median 10 [IQR 6-15] vs 4 [IQR 3-7], p < 0.01). Biliary sclerosis was the most common complication (n = 2/23 vs n = 4/28); however, there were no differences in postoperative or HAI-specific complications. In the most recent two years, 0 patients in the unresectable group vs 2 patients in the adjuvant group developed biliary sclerosis. All patients were initiated on HAI with no difference in treatment times or dose reductions. CONCLUSION: Adjuvant HAI is safe and feasible for patients with resectable CRLM. HAI programs can carefully consider including patients with resectable CRLM if managed by an experienced multidisciplinary team with quality assurance controls in place.

Neoadjuvant therapy use and association with postoperative outcomes and overall survival in patients with extrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Evidence for neoadjuvant therapy (NAT) in extrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (eCCA) is limited. Our objectives were to: (1) characterize treatment trends, (2) identify factors associated with receipt of NAT, and (3) evaluate associations between NAT and postoperative outcomes. METHODS: Retrospective cohort study of the National Cancer Database (2004-2017). Multivariable logistic regression assessed associations between NAT and postoperative outcomes. Stratified analysis evaluated differences between surgery first, neoadjuvant chemotherapy, and neoadjuvant chemoradiation (CRT). RESULTS: Among 8040 patients, 417 (5.2%) received NAT. NAT increased during the study period 2.9%-8.4% (p < 0.001). Factors associated with receipt of NAT included age <50 (vs. >75, odds ratio [OR] 4.32, p < 0.001) and stage 3 disease (vs. 1, OR 1.68, p = 0.01). Compared with surgery first, patients who received NAT had higher odds of R0 resection (OR 1.49, p = 0.01) and lower 30-day mortality (OR 0.51, p = 0.04). On stratified analysis, neoadjuvant chemotherapy was not associated with differences in any outcomes. However, neoadjuvant CRT was associated with improvement in R0 resection (OR 3.52, <0.001) and median survival (47.8 vs. 25.3 months, log-rank < 0.001) compared to surgery first. CONCLUSIONS: NAT, particularly neoadjuvant CRT, was associated with improved postoperative outcomes. These data suggest expanding the use of neoadjuvant CRT for eCCA.

Understanding General Surgery Applicant Expectations and Perceptions in the Virtual Interview Process.

OBJECTIVE: The COVID-19 pandemic has played a lasting role on residency recruitment through the virtual interview process. The objective of this study was to 1) examine general surgery applicants' priorities and perceptions following pre-interview virtual open houses and 2) to assess applicant expectations and efficacy of the virtual interview day process. DESIGN/SETTING/PARTICIPANTS: This study utilized two voluntary and anonymous cross-sectional surveys administered via email to evaluate the virtual interview process of a general surgery residency program. The first was administered to registrants following completion of three open houses of various topics. The second was administered following each interview day. The post-open house survey had 78 respondents, two excluded for no open house attendance. The post-interview survey was completed by 44 applicants (62.9% response rate). RESULTS: Majority of respondents reported that attending virtual open houses made them want to apply to (90.9%) and improved their perception of the program (94.7%). Applicants who felt a sense of obligation to attend open houses (68.4%) were significantly more likely to feel that they contributed to the stress and time commitment of applications (81.8% vs 18.2%, p=0.028). Interview expectations were identified in recurrent themes: 1. Clear organization with breaks, 2. Interactive resident sessions, 3. Meetings with program leadership, 4. Additional information unavailable on other resources. The pre-interview social and interview day improved 90.2% of the applicants' perceptions of the program. The interview significantly improved applicants' ability to assess nearly all aspects of the program, notably resident camaraderie and culture (30.8% vs 97.4%, p=0.01) and strengths and weaknesses (30.8% vs 92.3%, p=0.04). CONCLUSIONS: While virtual open houses can improve applicants' perceptions and desire to apply to a program, the associated stress and obligation should be considered. Virtual interviews should provide information unavailable using other resources and provide avenues for conveying the resident culture and camaraderie.

A National Mixed-Methods Evaluation of General Surgery Residency Program Responsiveness and the Association with Resident Wellness.

INTRODUCTION: Resident burnout is highly prevalent in general surgery. Burnout is increasingly recognized as a symptom of an unsupportive workplace. The objectives of this study were to describe resident perceptions of program responsiveness and to identify associated factors. METHODS: We used a convergent mixed-methods design. A cross-sectional survey was administered to all U.S. general surgery residents following the 2020 ABSITE, querying resident perceptions of their learning environment (including program responsiveness), burnout, thoughts of attrition and suicide, and career satisfaction. Multivariable logistic regression models adjusting for program/resident characteristics assessed associations of program responsiveness with aspects of the learning environment and resident wellness. 366 interviews and 27 focus groups with residents and faculty were conducted during in-person visits to 15 residency programs. Transcripts were analyzed thematically using inductive and deductive logics until thematic saturation was achieved. RESULTS: Of the 7233 clinically active residents from 323 programs who completed the survey (85.5% response rate), 5256 had data available for all outcomes of interest. 72.1% (n = 3791) reported satisfaction with program responsiveness. These residents were significantly less likely to report 80-hour workweek violations (odds ratio [OR] 0.22, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.18-0.26), burnout (OR 0.47, 95% CI 0.41-0.53), thoughts of attrition (OR 0.32, 95% CI 0.27-0.38), and suicidality (OR 0.52, 95% CI 0.41-0.65). They were significantly more likely to report satisfaction with career choice, personal life, and work-life balance (all p < 0.001). Factors associated with improved perception of program responsiveness included larger program size (50+ vs. <23 residents; OR 1.48, 95% CI 1.01-2.19), having faculty mentorship (OR 2.64, 95% CI 2.22-3.14), having meaningful input into call and vacation schedules (OR 3.31, 95% CI 2.74-4.00), and feeling comfortable speaking up (OR 4.20, 95% CI 3.47-5.09). We conducted a qualitative analysis to identify the following components of program responsiveness: (1) core values reflecting a shared understanding of the importance of resident voice in shaping the training experience and the program, including mutual trust and respect between residents and faculty, transparency and communication, resident unity, and resident participation in and ownership of program improvement; (2) structural constructs that reflect and support responsiveness; (3) mechanisms for supporting resident agency, including resources and leadership support, faculty advocacy, and resident leadership opportunities. CONCLUSION: Program responsiveness in surgical residency is associated with improved resident wellness. Programs should develop formal channels to elicit and concretely address resident concerns, provide opportunities for resident representation, and entrust residents with the flexibility and autonomy to make decisions that support their own education and wellness.

COVID-19 Positivity Following an In-Person Surgical Society Meeting: A Cross-Sectional Survey Study.

INTRODUCTION: Many surgical societies have recently resumed in-person meetings after canceling or adopting virtual formats during the COVID-19 pandemic. These meetings implemented safety measures to limit viral exposure and ensure participant safety. While there have been anecdotal reports of COVID-19 cases after attendance, no large-scale assessments have been undertaken. The objective of this study was to evaluate COVID-19 positivity following an in-person surgical society meeting. METHODS: An online survey was administered to participants of the Society for Asian Academic Surgeons annual meeting, which was held in Chicago, Illinois in September 2021. This survey assessed vaccination status, in-person versus virtual conference attendance, and COVID-19 testing and symptoms in the 7 d immediately following the meeting. RESULTS: Among the 220 meeting participants, 173 attended in person (79%). There were 91 survey respondents (41% response rate): 67% attending physicians, 27% trainees, and 6% medical students. Nearly, all (99%) reported being fully vaccinated against COVID-19. COVID-19 testing was sought within 7 d of the meeting by 15% of in-person respondents, and all reported negative results. Among individuals who were not tested, no one reported development of symptoms (cough, shortness of breath, fever, new loss of taste/smell, etc.). CONCLUSIONS: Among in-person attendees of a recent surgical society meeting, no one reported positive COVID-19 testing after the meeting, and individuals who were not tested denied developing symptoms. While these results are encouraging, societies hosting meetings should continue to proactively assess the safety of in-person meetings to promptly identify outbreaks and opportunities for improvement.

A national quality improvement study identifying and addressing cancer screening deficits due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

BACKGROUND: Cancer-related deaths over the next decade are expected to increase due to cancer screening deficits associated with the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Although national deficits have been quantified, a structured response to identifying and addressing local deficits has not been widely available. The objectives of this report are to share preliminary data on monthly screening deficits in breast, colorectal, lung, and cervical cancers across diverse settings and to provide online materials from a national quality improvement (QI) study to help other institutions to address local screening deficits. METHODS: This prospective, national QI study on Return-to-Screening enrolled 748 accredited cancer programs in the United States from April through June 2021. Local prepandemic and pandemic monthly screening test volumes (MTVs) were used to calculate the relative percent change in MTV to describe the monthly screening gap. RESULTS: The majority of facilities reported monthly screening deficits (colorectal cancer, 80.6% [n = 104/129]; cervical cancer, 69.0% [n = 20/29]; breast cancer, 55.3% [n = 241/436]; lung cancer, 44.6% [n = 98/220]). Overall, the median relative percent change in MTV ranged from -17.7% for colorectal cancer (interquartile range [IQR], -33.6% to -2.8%), -6.8% for cervical cancer (IQR, -29.4% to 1.7%), -1.6% for breast cancer (IQR, -9.6% to 7.0%), and 1.2% for lung cancer (IQR, -16.9% to 19.0%). Geographic differences were not observed. There were statistically significant differences in the percent change in MTV between institution types for colorectal cancer screening (P = .02). CONCLUSION: Cancer screening is still in need of urgent attention, and the screening resources made available online may help facilities to close critical gaps and address screenings missed in 2020. LAY SUMMARY: Question: How can the effects of the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic on cancer screening be mitigated? FINDINGS: When national resources were provided, including methods to calculate local screening deficits, 748 cancer programs promptly enrolled in a national Return-to-Screening study, and the majority identified local screening deficits, most notably in colorectal cancer. Using these results, 814 quality improvement projects were initiated with the potential to add 70,000 screening tests in 2021. Meaning: Cancer screening is still in need of urgent attention, and the online resources that we provide may help to close critical screening deficits.