Adjuvant Chemotherapy and Outcomes in Older Adult Patients With Biliary Tract Cancer.

Importance: The association of adjuvant chemotherapy (AC) with survival in the general population of patients with resected biliary tract cancer (BTC) remains controversial. As such, the role of this treatment in the treatment of older adult patients (aged ≥70 years) needs to be evaluated. Objective: To describe the patterns of use of AC and compare survival outcomes of AC and observation in older adult patients following resection of BTC. Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective cohort study included 8091 older adult patients with resected BTC with data available in the National Cancer Database from January 1, 2004, to December 31, 2019. Patients were divided into 2 cohorts: AC and observation. The AC cohort was subdivided into single-agent and multiagent AC treatment. Exposures: Adjuvant chemotherapy vs observation following BTC resection. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was overall survival (OS) of patients who received AC compared with observation following resection of BTC as evaluated using Kaplan-Meier estimates and multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression models. Inverse probability of treatment weighting and propensity score matching were performed to address indication bias. Results: Between 2004 and 2019, of 8091 older adult patients with resected BTC identified (median [range] age, 77 [70-90] years; 5136 women [63.5%]; 2955 men [36.5%]), only one-third (2632 [32.5%]) received AC. There was an increase in the use of AC across the study period from 20.7% (n = 495) in 2004 to 2009 to 41.2% (n = 856) in 2016 to 2019. Age 80 years or older (odds ratio, 0.29; 95% CI, 0.25-0.33; P < .001) and gallbladder primary site (odds ratio, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.61-0.83; P < .001) were associated with a lower odds of AC. Following inverse probability of treatment weighting, as a composite, AC was not associated with improved survival (median OS, 20.5 months; 95% CI, 19.2-21.7 months) compared with observation (median OS, 19.0 months; 95% CI, 18.1-20.3 months). A longer median OS was associated with single-agent AC (21.5 months; 95% CI, 19.9-24.0 months) but not multiagent AC (19.1 months; 95% CI, 17.5-21.1 months) compared with observation (median OS, 17.3 months; 95% CI, 16.1-18.4 months). This improvement in OS with single-agent AC was not apparent on multivariable analysis (hazard ratio [HR], 0.97; 95% CI, 0.89-1.05; P = .44). However, age at diagnosis of 80 years or older (HR, 1.35; 95% CI, 1.28-1.42; P < .001) and treatment at nonacademic centers (HR, 1.14; 95% CI, 1.07-1.20, P < .001) were associated with worse OS. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study of older adult patients, AC was not associated with an improvement in survival compared with observation following BTC resection. These findings suggest the need for further study of AC for older adult patients who may benefit after curative intent surgery for BTC.

Development and evaluation of a list of high-risk inpatient procedures in patients 65 years and older.

BACKGROUND: Inpatient procedures are common and important health events for older Americans. To facilitate surgical outcomes research, we sought to create and evaluate lists of International Classification of Disease, Tenth Revision (ICD-10) codes for high-risk inpatient procedures, defined as having at least a 1% inpatient mortality. METHODS: This retrospective national cohort study analyzes Medicare claims from 2018 for patients 65 years and older undergoing inpatient procedures. Surgical Diagnosis Related Group (DRG) codes in the inpatient claims were used to identify procedures. We identified the primary ICD-10 procedure code for each patient and then compiled all codes with at least a 1% inpatient mortality yielding three separate lists: one list that was blind to elective versus urgent/emergent status, and one each for urgent/emergent and elective procedures. Clinical review by three surgeons was used to remove procedures unlikely to be the proximate cause of mortality. For evaluation, we examined the mortality of each code among fee-for-service Medicare beneficiaries in 2017, 2019, and 2020 to determine how many of these satisfied the 1% mortality criterion. RESULTS: This study included 2,241,419 patients from 2018 undergoing inpatient procedures. The final result included 231 (blind to elective vs urgent/emergent status), 167 (urgent/emergent status), and 119 (elective status) ICD-10 procedure codes for the three lists. Our evaluation from 2017, 2019, and 2020 demonstrated that in our master list, which was blind to elective versus urgent/emergent status, 97.8% of procedures had an inpatient mortality of at least 1%. In our high-risk procedures lists for urgent/emergent and elective procedures, 100% and 94.1% of codes met this requirement. CONCLUSIONS: We developed and evaluated lists of ICD-10 codes representing high-risk procedures in patients 65 years and older. These lists will be powerful tools for researchers studying surgical outcomes.

The Gender Gap in Surgical Literature: Are We Making Progress?

INTRODUCTION: The percentage of women in surgical leadership roles is not commensurate with percent of women in field of surgery. Citation indexes are used as proxy for scholarly impact and may serve as an indicator of women's progress in academic surgery. We aimed to evaluate gender disparities in authorship of surgery manuscripts in high-impact journals. METHODS: In this bibliometric analysis of original research articles from four high-impact surgical journals from 2008 to 2010 (period A) and 2018-2020 (period B), the gender of primary and senior authors was assigned by Genderize.io. Number of citations per article was identified via Web of Science. Number of citations by gender of authors was compared across time periods. RESULTS: Of the 3575 articles (Period A = 1915; Period B = 1660), 962 (26.9%) had women as primary authors and 590 (17.2%) as senior authors. Over time, significant increases in women primary and senior authorship were noted from 22.8% to 31.7% (P < 0.001) and 13.9% (254/11,915) to 21% (336/1660), respectively (P < 0.001). Articles written with women primary authors had fewer median (interquartile range) citations than those by men as primary author in period A (39 [17-69.5] versus 42 [20.0-84.0]; P = 0.005). Gender parity was noted in period B (9 [4-19] versus 9 [4-20] citations; P = 0.307). In period A, articles written by women as both primary and senior authors had approximately 25% fewer median citations compared with those by men (34 [17-62] versus 44 [21-86]); P < 0.011), and this reached parity in period B (9 [4-20] versus 9 [4-21]); P < 0.658). CONCLUSIONS: Overall, gender authorship and citations parity are improving in high-impact surgery journals.

Management of Gastric Neuroendocrine Tumors: A Review.

Gastric neuroendocrine tumors (G-NET) are rare tumors arising from enterochromaffin-like cells of the gastric mucosa. They belong to a larger group called gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumors and are classified as low, intermediate, or high-grade tumors based on their proliferative indices. They are further categorized into three subtypes based on their morphologic characteristics, pathogenesis, and behavior. Types 1 and 2 tumors are characterized by elevated serum gastrin and are usually multifocal. They typically occur in the setting of atrophic gastritis or MEN1/Zollinger Ellison syndrome, respectively. Type 2 tumors are associated with the most symptoms, such as abdominal pain and diarrhea. Type 3 tumors are associated with normal serum gastrin, are usually solitary, and occur sporadically. This type has the most aggressive phenotype and metastatic potential. Treatment and prognosis for G-NET is dependent on their type, size, and stage. Type 1 has the best prognosis, and Type 3 has the worst. This review discusses the presentation, workup, and surgical management of these tumors.

Simple Preoperative Imaging Measurements Predict Postoperative Pancreatic Fistula After Pancreatoduodenectomy.

OBJECTIVE: Postoperative pancreatic fistula is a potentially devastating complication after pancreatoduodenectomy (PD). The purpose of this study was to identify features on preoperative computed tomography (CT) imaging that correlate with an increased risk of postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF). METHODS: Patients who underwent PD at our high-volume pancreatic surgery center from 2019 to 2021 were included if CT imaging was available within 8 weeks of surgical intervention. Pancreatic neck thickness (PNT), abdominal wall thickness (AWT), and intra-abdominal distance from pancreas to peritoneum (PTP) were measured by two board-certified radiologists who were blinded to the clinical outcomes. Radiographic measurements, as well as preoperative patient characteristics and intraoperative data, were assessed with univariate and multivariable analysis (MVA) to determine risk for clinically relevant POPF (CR-POPF, grades B and C). RESULTS: A total of 204 patients met inclusion criteria. Median PTP was 5.8 cm, AWT 1.9 cm, and PNT 1.3 cm. CR-POPF occurred in 33 of 204 (16.2%) patients. MVA revealed PTP > 5.8 cm (odds ratio [OR] 2.86, p = 0.023), PNT > 1.3 cm (OR 2.43, p = 0.047), soft pancreas consistency (OR 3.47, p = 0.012), and pancreatic duct size ≤ 3.0 mm (OR 4.55, p = 0.01) as independent risk factors for CR-POPF after PD. AWT and obesity were not associated with increased risk of CR-POPF. Patients with PTP > 5.8 cm or PNT > 1.3 cm were significantly more likely to suffer a major complication after PD (39.6% vs. 22.3% and 40% vs. 22.1%, p < 0.008). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with a thick pancreatic neck and increased intra-abdominal girth have a heightened risk of CR-POPF after pancreatoduodenectomy, and they experience more serious postoperative complications. We defined a simple CT scan-based measurement tool to identify patients at increased risk of CR-POPF.

Identifying the optimal treatment strategy in patients with resectable non-cardia gastric cancer.

BACKGROUND: Multimodal treatment strategy including perioperative chemotherapy (PEC), postoperative chemoradiation therapy (POCR), and postoperative chemotherapy (POC) has been accepted as the standard of care in gastric cancer (GC). The ideal sequence and type of therapy remain undetermined. METHOD: The National Cancer Database was examined from 2006 to 2016 to identify patients with resectable non-cardia gastric cancer. Patient outcomes were compared based on the receipt of PEC, POCR, and POC. This comparison was repeated in a sub-group of patients who received optimal treatment. Optimal treatment was defined as initial chemotherapy within 45 days of diagnosis, resection within 45 days of diagnosis, negative margins, adjuvant chemotherapy within 90 days of resection and standard radiation dose (45 Gy). Kaplan-Meier test, log-rank test, and multivariable analysis (MVA) were performed. RESULTS: We identified 9589 patients. Median survival was greater in the PEC group followed by POCR and POC (60.6, 42.3, and 31.2 months, respectively). On MVA, factors associated with worse overall survival included age above median (≥ 63 years), Charlson-Deyo score of ≥ 1, non-academic/research program, poorly differentiated/undifferentiated grade, positive margins, and positive lymph nodes. Both PEC and POCR were associated with improved survival when compared to POC (HR 0.78 and 0.79; p < 0.001). When compared with PEC, no significant difference was noted with POCR (HR 1.01; p = 0.987). These results were maintained in optimally treated cohort (n = 3418). CONCLUSION: In patients with resectable non-cardia gastric cancer, both perioperative chemotherapy and postoperative chemoradiation therapy were associated with improved survival when compared to postoperative chemotherapy. No difference was noted between perioperative chemotherapy and postoperative chemoradiation therapy. These results were maintained in the optimally treated cohort.

Role of Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy in Hepatocellular Carcinoma.

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC)is a common type of liver cancer with a poor prognosis, especially in patients with advanced stages or underlying liver disease. While surgical resection, liver transplantation, and ablation therapies have traditionally been the mainstay of treatment for HCC, radiation therapy has become increasingly recognized as an effective alternative, particularly for those who are not surgical candidates. Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy (SBRT) is a highly precise form of radiation therapy that delivers very high doses of radiation to the tumor while sparing surrounding healthy tissue. Several studies have reported favorable outcomes with SBRT in HCC treatment. Moreover, SBRT can be used to treat recurrent HCC after prior treatment, offering a potentially curative approach in select cases. While SBRT has demonstrated its efficacy and safety in treating HCC, future studies are needed to further investigate the potential role of SBRT in combination with other treatments for HCC.

Targeting the non-coding genome and temozolomide signature enables CRISPR-mediated glioma oncolysis.

Glioblastoma (GBM) is the most common lethal primary brain cancer in adults. Despite treatment regimens including surgical resection, radiotherapy, and temozolomide (TMZ) chemotherapy, growth of residual tumor leads to therapy resistance and death. At recurrence, a quarter to a third of all gliomas have hypermutated genomes, with mutational burdens orders of magnitude greater than in normal tissue. Here, we quantified the mutational landscape progression in a patient's primary and recurrent GBM, and we uncovered Cas9-targetable repeat elements. We show that CRISPR-mediated targeting of highly repetitive loci enables rapid elimination of GBM cells, an approach we term "genome shredding." Importantly, in the patient's recurrent GBM, we identified unique repeat sequences with TMZ mutational signature and demonstrated that their CRISPR targeting enables cancer-specific cell ablation. "Cancer shredding" leverages the non-coding genome and therapy-induced mutational signatures for targeted GBM cell depletion and provides an innovative paradigm to develop treatments for hypermutated glioma.

SAGES/AHPBA guidelines for the use of microwave and radiofrequency liver ablation for the surgical treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma or colorectal liver metastases less than 5 cm.

BACKGROUND: Primary hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and colorectal liver metastases (CRLM) represent the liver's two most common malignant neoplasms. Liver-directed therapies such as ablation have become part of multidisciplinary therapies despite a paucity of data. Therefore, an expert panel was convened to develop evidence-based recommendations regarding the use of microwave ablation (MWA) and radiofrequency ablation (RFA) for HCC or CRLM less than 5 cm in diameter in patients ineligible for other therapies. METHODS: A systematic review was conducted for six key questions (KQ) regarding MWA or RFA for solitary liver tumors in patients deemed poor candidates for first-line therapy. Subject experts used the GRADE methodology to formulate evidence-based recommendations and future research recommendations. RESULTS: The panel addressed six KQs pertaining to MWA vs. RFA outcomes and laparoscopic vs. percutaneous MWA. The available evidence was poor quality and individual studies included both HCC and CRLM. Therefore, the six KQs were condensed into two, recognizing that these were two disparate tumor groups and this grouping was somewhat arbitrary. With this significant limitation, the panel suggested that in appropriately selected patients, either MWA or RFA can be safe and feasible. However, this recommendation must be implemented cautiously when simultaneously considering patients with two disparate tumor biologies. The limited data suggested that laparoscopic MWA of anatomically more difficult tumors has a compensatory higher morbidity profile compared to percutaneous MWA, while achieving similar overall 1-year survival. Thus, either approach can be appropriate depending on patient-specific factors (very low certainty of evidence). CONCLUSION: Given the weak evidence, these guidelines provide modest guidance regarding liver ablative therapies for HCC and CRLM. Liver ablation is just one component of a multimodal approach and its use is currently limited to a highly selected population. The quality of the existing data is very low and therefore limits the strength of the guidelines.

Combination of Immunotherapy and Radiation Therapy in Gastrointestinal Cancers: An Appraisal of the Current Literature and Ongoing Research.

Oncological outcomes are improving in gastrointestinal cancer with advancements in systemic therapies, and there is notable potential in combining immunotherapy and radiation therapy (RT) to allow for further improvements. Various preclinical and early phase II studies have shown promising synergy with immunotherapy and RT in gastrointestinal cancer. A few recent phase III studies have shown improved survival with the addition of immunotherapy to standard treatment for gastrointestinal cancer. The timing, duration, sequencing, and integration with other anti-cancer treatments are still areas of ongoing research. We have reviewed the published and ongoing studies of the combinations of immunotherapy and RT in gastrointestinal cancers.

Impact of nodal status in determining multimodal treatment strategies in non-cardia gastric cancer.

BACKGROUND: Patients with resectable noncardia gastric cancer may be subjected to perioperative chemotherapy (PEC), postoperative chemoradiation (POCR), or postoperative chemotherapy (POC). We analyzed these treatment strategies to determine optimal therapy based on nodal status. METHOD: The National Cancer Database was used to identify patients with resected noncardia gastric cancer (2004-2016). Patients were stratified based on clinical nodal status-negative (cLN-), positive (cLN+) and pathological nodal status (pLN-, pLN+). In cLN- patients who underwent upfront resection and were upstaged to pLN+, POC, and POCR were compared. Overall survival (OS) with PEC, POCR, and POC were compared in cLN- and cLN+. RESULTS: We identified 6142 patients (cLN-: 3831; cLN+: 2311). In cLN- patients who underwent upfront resection (N = 3423), 69% were upstaged to pLN+ disease (N = 2499; POCR = 1796, POC = 703). On MVA, POCR was associated with significantly improved OS when compared to POC (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.75; p < 0.001). In patients with cLN- disease (PEC = 408; POCR = 2439; POC = 984), PEC(HR: 0.77; p = 0.01) and POCR(HR: 0.81; p < 0.001) were associated with improved OS compared with POC. In cLN+ group (PEC = 452; POCR = 1284; POC = 575), POCR was associated with improved OS compared with POC (HR: 0.81; p < 0.01), and trend towards improved OS was noted when PEC(HR: 0.83; p = 0.055) was compared with POC. CONCLUSION: Postoperative chemoradiation may be the preferred treatment strategy over postoperative chemotherapy in non-cardia gastric cancer patients who receive upfront resection and are upstaged from clinically node negative to pathologically node positive disease.

Does non-metastatic gastric cancer of the cardia warrant a different treatment strategy?

BACKGROUND: Multimodal treatment strategies with surgery as its centerpiece have been accepted as the standard of care in nonmetastatic cardia gastric cancer (CGC). There remains a lack of consensus regarding the optimal multimodal treatment strategy. METHOD: We queried National Cancer Database from 2004 to 2016 to identify patients with resected nonmetastatic CGC who received perioperative chemotherapy (PEC), postoperative chemoradiation therapy (POCR), or postoperative chemotherapy (POC). A subgroup analysis was performed in optimally treated patients defined as initial chemotherapy within 45 days of diagnosis, resection within 45 days of diagnosis, negative margins, adjuvant chemotherapy within 90 days of resection, and standard radiation dose (45 Gy). Kaplan-Meier, Univariate analysis (UVA), and Multivariable analysis (MVA) were performed. RESULTS: We identified 2387 patients. Median survival was 38.8 months in the PEC group, 36 months in the POCR group, and 32.3 months in the POC group (p = 0.1025). On UVA, patients treated with PEC had an association with improved survival (HR, 0.83; p = 0.037) when compared with POC. On MVA, no significant difference was noted in overall survival (OS) between PEC, POCR, and POC, similar to subgroup analysis of optimally treated cohort. CONCLUSION: OS rate in nonmetastatic CGC is not significantly different between patients receiving PEC, POCR, or POC.

Early experience with robotic central pancreatectomy with patient-reported outcomes and comparison with open central pancreatectomy.

BACKGROUND: Robotic central pancreatectomy (CP) has emerged in recent years as a noninferior approach to open CP and may offer improved patient-reported outcomes and reduction in incisional hernias. METHODS: All patients who underwent open and robotic CP between (2013 and 2022) were selected, and perioperative outcomes were analyzed. Patients who underwent robotic CP were interviewed over the phone to assess patient-reported postoperative outcomes. RESULTS: A total of 18 CP operations (56%-open vs. 44%-robotic) were identified. The overall median age was 67 years (interquartile range: 60-72), and 50% (n = 9) of patients were female. Median length of surgery was statistically longer for robotic CP (411 vs. 138 min, p = 0.002); all other intraoperative variables were similar. Postoperatively, a similar number of patients in the open and robotic cohorts developed clinically significant postoperative pancreatic fistulas (37.5% vs. 30%, p = 1) and major complications (37.5% vs. 20%, p = 0.60), respectively. No patients in the robotic cohort developed an incisional hernia, compared to 40% (n = 4) in open (p = 0.08). All patients returned to a baseline level of activity and reported a high quality of life. CONCLUSION: With the exception of longer operative times, robotic CP is a noninferior, definitive resection technique for select lesions of the middle pancreas. Additionally, the robotic approach may result in a reduction in incisional hernia development.

Robotic Distal Pancreatectomy: A Novel Standard of Care? Benchmark Values for Surgical Outcomes From 16 International Expert Centers.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Robotic distal pancreatectomy (DP) is an emerging attractive approach, but its role compared with laparoscopic or open surgery remains unclear. Benchmark values are novel and objective tools for such comparisons. The aim of this study was to identify benchmark cutoffs for many outcome parameters for DP with or without splenectomy beyond the learning curve. METHODS: This study analyzed outcomes from international expert centers from patients undergoing robotic DP for malignant or benign lesions. After excluding the first 10 cases in each center to reduce the effect of the learning curve, consecutive patients were included from the start of robotic DP up to June 2020. Benchmark patients had no significant comorbidities. Benchmark cutoff values were derived from the 75th or the 25th percentile of the median values of all benchmark centers. Benchmark values were compared with a laparoscopic control group from 4 high-volume centers and published open DP landmark series. RESULTS: Sixteen centers contributed 755 cases, whereof 345 benchmark patients (46%) were included the analysis. Benchmark cutoffs included: operation time ≤300 minutes, conversion rate ≤3%, clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistula ≤32%, 3 months major complication rate ≤26.7%, and lymph node retrieval ≥9. The comprehensive complication index at 3 months was ≤8.7 without deterioration thereafter. Compared with robotic DP, laparoscopy had significantly higher conversion rates (5×) and overall complications, while open DP was associated with more blood loss and longer hospital stay. CONCLUSION: This first benchmark study demonstrates that robotic DP provides superior postoperative outcomes compared with laparoscopic and open DP. Robotic DP may be expected to become the approach of choice in minimally invasive DP.

Surgical approach to microwave and radiofrequency liver ablation for hepatocellular carcinoma and colorectal liver metastases less than 5 cm: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Primary hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and colorectal liver metastases (CRLM) represent the two most common malignant neoplasms of the liver. The objective of this study was to assess outcomes of surgical approaches to liver ablation comparing laparoscopic versus percutaneous microwave ablation (MWA), and MWA versus radiofrequency ablation (RFA) in patients with HCC or CRLM lesions smaller than 5 cm. METHODS: A systematic review was conducted across seven databases, including PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane, to identify all comparative studies between 1937 and 2021. Two independent reviewers screened for eligibility, extracted data for selected studies, and assessed study bias using the modified Newcastle Ottawa Scale. Random effects meta-analyses were subsequently performed on all available comparative data. RESULTS: From 1066 records screened, 11 studies were deemed relevant to the study and warranted inclusion. Eight of the 11 studies were at high or uncertain risk for bias. Our meta-analyses of two studies revealed that laparoscopic MW ablation had significantly higher complication rates compared to a percutaneous approach (risk ratio = 4.66; 95% confidence interval = [1.23, 17.22]), but otherwise similar incomplete ablation rates, local recurrence, and oncologic outcomes. The remaining nine studies demonstrated similar efficacy of MWA and RFA, as measured by incomplete ablation, complication rates, local/regional recurrence, and oncologic outcomes, for both HCC and CRLM lesions less than 5 cm (p > 0.05 for all outcomes). There was no statistical subgroup interaction in the analysis of tumors < 3 cm. CONCLUSION: The available comparative evidence regarding both laparoscopic versus percutaneous MWA and MWA versus RFA is limited, evident by the few studies that suffer from high/uncertain risk of bias. Additional high-quality randomized trials or statistically matched cohort studies with sufficient granularity of patient variables, institutional experience, and physician specialty/training will be useful in informing clinical decision making for the ablative treatment of HCC or CRLM.