Feeding Jejunostomy Tube in Patients Undergoing Esophagectomy: Utilization and Outcomes in a Nationwide Cohort.

BACKGROUND: Feeding jejunostomy (JT) tubes are often utilized as an adjunct to optimize nutrition for successful esophagectomy; however, their utility has come into question. The aim of this study was to evaluate utilization and outcomes associated with JTs in a nationwide cohort of patients undergoing esophagectomy. METHODS: The NSQIP database was queried for patients who underwent elective esophagectomy. JT utilization was assessed between 2010 and 2019. Post-operative outcomes were compared between those with and without a JT on patients with esophagectomy-specific outcomes (2016-2019), with results validated using a propensity score-matched (PSM) analysis based on key clinicopathologic factors, including tumor stage. RESULTS: Of the 10,117 patients who underwent elective esophagectomy over the past decade, 53.0% had a JT placed concurrently and 47.0% did not. Utilization of JTs decreased over time, accounting for 60.0% of cases in 2010 compared to 41.7% in 2019 (m = - 2.14 95%CI: [- 1.49]-[- 2.80], p < 0.01). Patients who underwent JT had more composite wound complications (17.0% vs. 14.1%, p = 0.02) and a higher rate of all-cause morbidity (40.4% vs. 35.5%, p = 0.01). Following PSM, 1007 pairs were identified. Analysis of perioperative outcomes demonstrated a higher rate of superficial skin infections (6.1% vs. 3.5%, p = 0.01) in the JT group. However, length of stay, reoperation, readmission, anastomotic leak, composite wound complications, all-cause morbidity, and mortality rates were similar between groups. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients undergoing elective esophagectomy, feeding jejunostomy tubes were utilized less frequently over the past decade. Similar perioperative outcomes among matched patients support the safety of esophagectomy without an adjunct feeding jejunostomy tube.

Lung cancer screening utilization rate varies based on patient, provider, and hospital factors.

OBJECTIVE: Low-dose computed tomography has been proven to reduce mortality, yet utilization remains low. The purpose of this study is to identify factors that impact the utilization of lung cancer screening. METHODS: We performed a retrospective review of our institution's primary care network from November 2012 to June 2022 to identify patients who were eligible for lung cancer screening. Eligible patients were 55 to 80 years of age and current or former smokers with at least a 30 pack-year history. Analyses were performed on the screened populations and patients who met eligibility criteria but were not screened. RESULTS: A total of 35,279 patients in our primary care network were current/former smokers aged 55 to 80 years. A total of 6731 patients (19%) had a 30 pack-year or more cigarette history, and 11,602 patients (33%) had an unknown pack-year history. A total of 1218 patients received low-dose computed tomography. The utilization rate of low-dose computed tomography was 18%. The utilization rate was significantly lower (9%) if patients with unknown pack-year history were included (P < .001). The utilization rates between primary care clinic locations were significantly different (range, 18% vs 41%, P < .05). Utilization of low-dose computed tomography on multivariate analysis was associated with Black race, former smoker, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, bronchitis, family history of lung cancer, and number of primary care visits (all P < .05). CONCLUSIONS: Lung cancer screening utilization rates are low and vary significantly on the basis of patient comorbidities, family history of lung cancer, primary care clinic location, and accurate documentation of pack-year cigarette history. The development of programs to address patient, provider, and hospital-level factors is needed to ensure appropriate lung cancer screening.

The Impact of Enhanced Recovery After Surgery on Persistent Opioid Use Following Pulmonary Resection.

BACKGROUND: Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) has been associated with improved perioperative outcomes after thoracic surgery; however, the impact on long-term opioid use remains unknown. The aim of our study was to evaluate the effects of ERAS on long-term opioid use. METHODS: Patients who underwent pulmonary resection were identified from a prospectively maintained database and linked to the regional prescription drug monitoring program. Outcomes were compared between pre-ERAS (February 2016 to November 2018) and ERAS (December 2018 to June 2020) cohorts. Our ERAS protocol included regional anesthetic, multimodal pain control, and protocolized rehabilitation. RESULTS: We analyzed 240 pulmonary resections, 64.6% (n = 155) in the pre-ERAS era and 35.4% (n = 85) in the ERAS era. Baseline characteristics were similar; however, more patients in the ERAS cohort underwent minimally invasive surgery (67.7% vs 87.9%; P = .002). Median length of stay was reduced (5 days vs 4 days; P = .03) upon implementation of ERAS, with no change in perioperative complications or readmission rate. On multivariate analysis, ERAS was associated with decreased total inpatient morphine milligram equivalent and discharge morphine milligram equivalent. However, both long-term opioid use up to 1 year postoperatively and new persistent opioid use remained similar despite implementation of ERAS. On multivariate analysis, implementation of ERAS was not associated with a reduction in opioid use 14 to 90 days postoperatively or persistent opioid use 90 to 180 days postoperatively. CONCLUSIONS: Despite short-term opioid reduction, long-term opioid use persisted after implementation of ERAS. Additional strategies to monitor for and avoid opioid dependence are urgently needed to prevent chronic opioid use after pulmonary resection.

Microsatellite instability is associated with worse overall survival in resectable colorectal liver metastases.

BACKGROUND: Microsatellite instability (MSI) has been associated with improved overall survival (OS) in locoregional colorectal cancer; however, the effects on colorectal liver metastases (CRLM) have not been studied. METHODS: The National Cancer Database (NCDB) was queried for patients with CRLM that underwent metastasectomy. Patients with microsatellite stable tumors (MSS) (n = 2,316, 84.4%) were compared those with MSI (n = 427, 15.6%). RESULTS: Baseline characteristics, including sex, race, and underlying comorbidities, were similar between groups. MSS patients had lower rates of high-risk pathologic features and higher rates of receiving multi-agent chemotherapy. On Kaplan-Meier analysis, median OS in the MSS group was improved compared with the MSI group (41.1 mo vs. 33.2 mo, p < 0.01). On multivariate analysis MSI status remained associated with worse OS (HR: 1.21 95% CI: 1.01-1.46, p = 0.04). CONCLUSIONS: This national analysis of CRLM validates MSI status as a biomarker to guide clinical decision-making due to the associated poor prognosis.

Offering lung resection to current smokers: An opportunity for more equitable care.

OBJECTIVE: Minority patients with lung cancer are less likely to undergo surgical resection and experience worse survival than non-Hispanic White patients. Currently, 40% of thoracic surgeons require smoking cessation before surgery, which may disproportionately affect minority patients. Our objective was to assess the risk of smoking status on postoperative morbidity and mortality among patients with lung cancer. METHODS: A prospectively maintained institutional database was queried for all patients who underwent surgical resection of a primary lung malignancy between 2006 and 2020. Operative mortality, major morbidity, and a composite of morbidity and mortality were compared between current smokers and prior smokers. RESULTS: A total of 601 patients underwent resection, and 236 (39.3%) were current smokers. Current smokers were more likely to be younger (P < .01), to have a greater pack-years history (P = .03), and to have worse pulmonary function test results (P < .01). Pretreatment stage, surgical approach, and extent of resection were similar between groups. There was no difference in operative mortality (0.9% vs 1.9%, P = .49), major morbidity (12.7% vs 9.3%, P = .19), or composite major morbidity and mortality between groups (13.1% vs 9.3%, P = .14). After adjusting for pulmonary function status, current smoking status was not associated with mortality or major morbidity on multivariable logistic regression (odds ratio, 1.51; 95% confidence interval, 0.76-3.03, P = .24). CONCLUSIONS: Current smokers experienced similar rates of mortality and major morbidity as prior smokers. In the context of continued racial and ethnic disparities in lung cancer survival, in particular decreased resection rates among minorities, smoking cessation requirements should not delay or prevent operative intervention for lung cancer.

Utilization and effectiveness of the organ procurement and transplantation network "safety-net" policy.

BACKGROUND: Liver transplant recipients with persistent renal dysfunction may be prioritized on the kidney transplant waitlist based on the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network "safety-net" policy implemented in 2017. The aim of this study was to evaluate the utilization of kidney transplant and posttransplant outcomes, of liver transplant recipients with persistent renal dysfunction before and after implementation of the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network kidney safety-net policy and standardization of simultaneous liver-kidney requirements. METHODS: Using the United Network for Organ Sharing database from January 2015 to March 2019, outcomes of liver transplant recipients listed for kidney transplant and the subset who received kidney after liver transplants were compared before and after policy implementation. RESULTS: Liver transplant recipients listed for kidney transplant increased from 58 to 200, and kidney after liver transplants increased from 29.3% to 42.5% after safety-net policy implementation. Post-policy kidney after liver transplants received more local organs (91.8% vs 70.6%, P = .03) and trended toward shorter waitlist time (47 [17-123] vs 84 [37-226] days, P = .051). The pre- and post-policy cohorts had similar (P > .05) kidney donor profile index (0.43 [0.27-0.69] vs 0.42 [0.28-0.58]) and delayed graft function (11.8% vs 14.1%). Patient, kidney graft, and liver graft survival were similar (P > .05) between pre and post-policy cohorts. Patient and kidney graft survival were similar between kidney after liver transplants and propensity score-matched kidney transplant alone recipients. Patient, kidney, and liver graft survival were similar between kidney after liver transplants and propensity score-matched simultaneous liver-kidney transplant recipients. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrates that after Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network "safety-net" policy implementation, there has been an increase in liver transplant recipients with renal dysfunction who are listed for and undergo kidney transplant with excellent short-term results.

Evaluating the Impact of ESPAC-1 on Shifting the Paradigm of Pancreatic Cancer Treatment.

BACKGROUND: In 2004, the European Study Group for Pancreatic Cancer (ESPAC)-1 long-term data concluded that adjuvant chemotherapy provided a survival benefit for patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC), whereas adjuvant chemoradiation was associated with worse overall survival. In this study, we investigated how long it took for US practice patterns to change following this trial. METHODS: The National Cancer Database was used to identify patients with stage I-III PDAC who underwent R0 or R1 resection followed by adjuvant chemotherapy or chemoradiation between 1998 and 2015. A multivariate analysis was performed to determine predictors of receiving adjuvant chemoradiation in the post-ESPAC-1 era. RESULTS: Between 1998 and 2015, adjuvant chemotherapy use increased from 2.9% to 51.6%, whereas adjuvant chemoradiation decreased from 49.5% to 22.9%. In 2010, adjuvant chemotherapy utilization surpassed that of chemoradiation. For patients diagnosed in the post-ESPAC-1 era, adjuvant chemotherapy (n = 7733) and chemoradiation (n = 6969) groups were compared. Patients who underwent adjuvant chemoradiation were younger, had private insurance, underwent surgery at nonacademic centers, and had more pathologically advanced cancers (all P < 0.01). After 2010, R1 resection was the strongest independent predictor of adjuvant chemoradiation use by multivariate analysis (OR 2.05, CI 1.8-2.3, P < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Adjuvant chemotherapy use exceeded that of adjuvant chemoradiation 6 y after the final publication of ESPAC-1 in 2004, highlighting the challenges of disseminating and adopting clinical data. After 2010, R1 disease was the most significant predictor of receiving adjuvant chemoradiation. Prospective studies are underway to definitively address the role of adjuvant chemoradiation in PDAC.

Lack of National Adoption of Evidence-Based Treatment for Resectable Gastric Adenocarcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Level 1 evidence for multimodal treatment of resectable gastric adenocarcinoma from the Intergroup 0116 (2001) and MAGIC (2006) trials demonstrated survival benefit of adjuvant chemoradiation (CRT) and perioperative chemotherapy, respectively. We evaluated the adoption of evidence-based treatment in the post-MAGIC era and its impact on survival. METHODS: A total of 7058 patients with resectable gastric adenocarcinoma undergoing definitive surgical resection between 2004 and 2015 were analyzed using the National Cancer Database. RESULTS: Over the study period, the proportion of patients receiving adjuvant CRT decreased from 19.1% to 9.1%, while perioperative chemotherapy increased from 1.9% to 28.6%. Utilization of perioperative chemotherapy surpassed adjuvant CRT in 2011. Evidence-based treatment (either perioperative chemotherapy or adjuvant CRT) had better overall survival (OS) than other treatments for clinical stage II-III patients (p < 0.05). On multivariate analysis of the whole study period, evidence-based treatments were associated with better OS (HR 0.67 [0.60-0.74], p < 0.05). Only 360/1262 (28.5%) patients in the perioperative chemotherapy group completed postoperative therapy, which was associated with improved OS (p < 0.05). For clinical stage III patients (n = 2402), only 806 (33.6%) received evidence-based treatment, while 487 (22.2%) underwent surgery alone. On multivariate analysis of these patients between 2010 and 2015, both perioperative chemotherapy (HR 0.49 [0.35-0.68]) and adjuvant CRT (HR 0.31 [0.21-0.44]) were associated with better OS than surgery alone (p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Since the INT-0116 and MAGIC trials, utilization of evidence-based treatments for resectable gastric adenocarcinoma has increased, with perioperative chemotherapy surpassing adjuvant CRT as the preferred practice. However, overall utilization of these regimens remains quite low nationally despite association with improved OS.

The impact of opioid use on human and health care costs in surgical patients.

BACKGROUND: Preoperative narcotic use impacts hospital cost and outcomes in surgical patients, but the underlying reasons are unclear. METHODS: A single-center retrospective analysis was performed on surgical patients admitted with intestinal obstruction (2010-2014). Patients were grouped into active opioid and nonopioid user cohorts. Active opioid use was defined as having an opioid prescription overlapping the date of admission. Chronic opioid use was defined by duration of use ≥ 90 days. Admission or intervention due to opioid-related illness was determined through consensus decision of 2 independent, blinded clinicians. Primary end point was the effect of active opioid use on hospital resource utilization. RESULTS: During the study period, 296 patients were admitted with a primary diagnosis of intestinal obstruction. Active opioid users accounted for 55 (18.6%) of these patients, with a median length of opioid use of 164 days (interquartile range 54-344 days). Average length of use was 164 days, with the majority of active users (n = 42, 76.4%) meeting criteria for chronic use. A subgroup analysis of active users demonstrated that opioid-related conditions were responsible for 10 admissions (18.2%) and 2 readmissions (3.6%). Among active users requiring surgical intervention, 3 procedures (21.4%) were due to opioid-related illnesses. Median hospital length of stay was 2 days longer (8 vs 6 days) and hospital costs were greater ($12,241 vs $8489) among active users (P < .05 each). CONCLUSION: Active opioid users are predisposed to avoidable admissions and interventions for opioid-related illnesses. Efforts to address opioid use in the surgical population may improve patient outcomes and health care spending.

Small Bowel Adenocarcinomas: Impact of Location on Survival.

BACKGROUND: Proximal (duodenal) small bowel adenocarcinomas have a worse prognosis than distal (jejuno-ileal) tumors, but differences in patient, tumor, and treatment factors between locations remain unclear. METHODS: Patients in the National Cancer Database with surgically resected pathologic stage I-IV small bowel adenocarcinomas between 2004 and 2015 were analyzed. Clinical stage IV patients were excluded. RESULTS: Proximal tumors (n = 3767) were more likely to be higher grade (OR 1.52, CI 1.22-1.85 for moderately; OR 1.83, CI 1.49-2.33 for poorly differentiated, P < 0.01 for both) and have positive lymph nodes (OR 2.04, CI 1.30-3.23, P < 0.01), while distal tumors (n = 3252) were likely to be larger (OR 1.31, CI 1.07-1.60 for size > 5 cm, P < 0.01). Proximal tumors were associated with worse overall survival (OS) and stage-specific survival compared with distal tumors (all P < 0.01). Cox regression analysis of the entire cohort showed worse survival with community versus academic cancer programs, higher comorbidity scores, pathologic stage IV, poorly differentiated histology, positive nodal or margin status, and proximal location, while female gender, larger tumor size, and chemotherapy predicted better survival. On separate Cox regression analyses of each location, neoadjuvant chemotherapy was associated with better OS in the proximal cohort (HR 0.70, CI 0.55-0.88, P < 0.01), while adjuvant chemotherapy was associated with better OS for both proximal (HR 0.49, CI 0.42-0.57, P < 0.01) and distal tumors (HR 0.68, CI 0.57-0.81, P < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Proximal small bowel adenocarcinomas are associated with worse overall and stage-specific survival. This may be due to tumor biologic differences as proximal tumors were more likely to have higher grade. Future studies should further investigate differences between proximal and distal tumors to guide targeted treatment algorithms.

Should We Be Doing Cytoreductive Surgery with HIPEC for Signet Ring Cell Appendiceal Adenocarcinoma? A Study from the US HIPEC Collaborative.

BACKGROUND: Appendiceal adenocarcinoma with signet ring cells (SCA) is associated with worse overall survival (OS), and it is unclear whether cytoreductive surgery with hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (CRS-HIPEC) should be pursued in this patient population. We assessed the prognostic implications of signet ring cells in patients with appendiceal adenocarcinoma and peritoneal carcinomatosis undergoing CRS-HIPEC. METHODS: The US HIPEC Collaborative, a 12-center, multi-institutional database of patients undergoing CRS-HIPEC, was reviewed for patients with SCA. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed. RESULTS: Of 514 patients undergoing CRS-HIPEC for appendiceal adenocarcinoma, 125 (24%) had SCA. The SCA and non-SCA groups had similar baseline characteristics. SCA had worse OS compared with non-SCA (32.0 vs 91.4 months, p < 0.001). In univariate analysis for only SCA cases, there was worse OS in patients with poorly differentiated tumors, positive lymph nodes, LVI, PCI > 20, or incomplete cytoreduction (CC-2/3). However, multivariate analysis showed only positive lymph nodes (HR 1.14 [95% CI 1.00-1.31], p = 0.04), poor differentiation (5.60 [1.29-24.39], p = 0.02), and incomplete cytoreduction (4.90 [1.11-12.70], p = 0.03) were independently associated with decreased OS for SCA. CONCLUSION: While signet cells are a negative prognostic feature, they should not be a contraindication to CRS-HIPEC in patients with well-moderately differentiated tumors with negative lymph nodes, where complete cytoreduction can be achieved.

Readmissions After Cytoreductive Surgery and Hyperthermic Intraperitoneal Chemotherapy: a US HIPEC Collaborative Study.

BACKGROUND: Cytoreductive surgery and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (CRS-HIPEC) results in significant morbidity and readmissions. Previous studies have been limited by single-institution design or lack of tumor details in the database used. METHODS: The 12-institution US HIPEC Collaborative Database was queried between 1999 and 2017. Preoperative and intraoperative patient and tumor details were analyzed for associations with readmissions. RESULTS: A total of 2017 of 2372 cases were included in the analysis. The 30-day readmission rate was 15.9% (n = 321). Common indications for readmission included failure to thrive (29.9%), infection (23.6%), and ileus/bowel obstruction (15.1%). The readmitted cohort had more complications, including intra-abdominal abscess (21.2% vs 6.2%), ileus (28.0% vs 17.2%), anastomotic leak (11.2% vs 2.2%), enteric fistula (5.6% vs 1.5%), deep venous thrombosis (6.2% vs 2.5%), and pulmonary embolism (6.9% vs 2.5%). Factors independently associated with readmission (p < 0.05) included ECOG score ≥ 3 (OR 3.4), depression (OR 2.4), total parenteral nutrition (OR 3.6), low anterior resection or partial colectomy (OR 2.0), and stoma creation (OR 2.2). Factors not associated included neoadjuvant chemotherapy, peritoneal cancer index, and completeness of cytoreduction. Readmission rate between 31 and 90 days was 3.9% (n = 78). Independent predictors (p < 0.05) included operative time (OR 1.1), low anterior resection or partial colectomy (OR 1.7), and stoma creation (OR 2.2). CONCLUSIONS: In the largest study to date examining readmissions after CRS-HIPEC, 30-day readmission rate was 15.9%. Tumor factors failed to predict readmission, whereas preoperative functional status and depression along with individual cytoreductive procedures predicted readmission. Patients with these risk factors or postoperative complications may benefit from closer post-discharge monitoring.

Outcome of delayed versus timely esophagectomy after chemoradiation for esophageal adenocarcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Salvage and delayed esophagectomy after chemoradiation therapy (CRT) have been associated with increased morbidity and mortality, but recent series have shown similar outcomes compared to timely esophagectomy. We aim to evaluate outcomes for delayed and salvage esophagectomy for esophageal adenocarcinoma utilizing a large national database. METHODS: The National Cancer Database for 2004 to 2014 was queried for patients with clinical stage II or III esophageal adenocarcinoma who underwent preoperative CRT and esophagectomy. Patients who underwent surgery <90 days after CRT were defined as the timely esophagectomy group (n = 7822), and those who underwent surgery ≥90 days after CRT were defined as the delayed esophagectomy group (n = 667). RESULTS: A total of 8489 patients met our inclusion criteria. The median post-CRT interval was 49 days (range, 40-61 days) for the timely esophagectomy group and 109 days (range, 97-132 days) for the delayed esophagectomy group. The delayed group was more likely to be of black race (2.3% vs 1.2%; P < .01) and more likely to have Medicare (47.9% vs 39.8%; P < .001). There were no significant between-group differences in chemotherapy regimens (P = .17), radiation dose (P = .18), or surgical approach (P = .48). The delayed esophagectomy group had higher rates of pathological complete response (22.2% vs 18.6%; P = .043) and 90-day postoperative mortality (10.4% vs 7.8%; P < .01). On multivariate analysis, delayed esophagectomy was not independently associated with decreased overall survival. CONCLUSIONS: In this large retrospective database study, despite increased perioperative mortality, delayed and salvage esophagectomy for adenocarcinoma appear to have similar long-term survival as timely esophagectomy. Delayed and salvage esophagectomy may be offered to patients who do not receive timely esophagectomy after CRT.

The impact of preoperative opioid use on outcomes after elective colorectal surgery: A propensity-matched comparison study.

BACKGROUND: The impact of recent preoperative opioid exposure on outcomes of colorectal surgery is unclear. Our aim was to evaluate the impact of preoperative opioid use on outcomes and opioid prescribing patterns after colorectal surgery. METHODS: We performed a retrospective review of all patients undergoing elective resection at a single institution from 2015 to 2017. Primary outcomes included in-hospital narcotic use and cost. Secondary outcomes included postoperative surgical outcomes and discharge prescribing patterns. RESULTS: A total of 390 patients underwent elective colorectal surgery, of whom 63 (16%) had a recent history of preoperative opioid use. Opioid users had similar age, sex, American Society of Anesthesiologists score, and operative indication compared with opioid-naïve patients (P > .05 for each). Postoperatively, the 30-day readmission rate was greater among opioid users (18% vs 9%, P = .03). Opioid users had greater total narcotic use (218 morphine milligram equivalents vs 111 morphine milligram equivalents, P = .04) and direct costs ($11,165 vs $8,911, P < .01). These patients were also more likely to require an opioid prescription on discharge (90% vs 68%, P < .01) and an opioid refill within 30 days (54% vs 21%, P < .01). CONCLUSION: Recent preoperative opioid exposure among colorectal surgery patients was associated with increased opioid consumption and costs. Moreover, unadjusted analysis was pertinent for more readmissions after surgery among preoperative opioid users. This work underscores the negative impact of preoperative, chronic opioid use on surgical outcomes and highlights the need for developing protocols to minimize perioperative narcotics.

Liver transplantation at safety net hospitals: Potentially vulnerable patients with noninferior outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Patients undergoing complex surgery at safety net hospitals have been shown to suffer inferior short-term outcomes. Liver transplantation, one of the most complex surgical interventions, is offered at certain safety net hospitals. We sought to identify whether patients undergoing liver transplantation at safety net hospitals have inferior outcomes compared with lower burden centers. METHODS: Using a link between the University HealthSystem Consortium and Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipient databases, we identified 11,047 patients undergoing liver transplantation at 63 centers between 2009 and 2012. Hospitals were grouped by safety net burden, defined as the proportion of Medicaid or uninsured patient encounters during that time. The highest quartile (safety net hospitals) was compared to medium- and low-burden hospitals regarding recipient and donor characteristics, perioperative outcomes, and long-term survival. RESULTS: Liver transplantation recipients at safety net hospitals were more often black and of lower socioeconomic status (P < .01), but had similar model for end-stage liver disease scores (20 vs 20 vs 18) compared with median-burden hospitals and low burden hospitals. Length of stay and readmission rates were similar; however, safety net hospitals demonstrated higher in-hospital mortality (5.2% vs 4.5% vs 2.9%, P < .01). Despite this, there was no significant difference in overall patient or graft survivals in patients who underwent liver transplantation at safety net hospitals and survived the perioperative setting at a median follow-up of 2 years (P > .05). CONCLUSION: Despite differences in perioperative outcomes at safety net hospitals, these centers achieve noninferior long-term patient and graft survival for potentially vulnerable patients requiring liver transplantation. Strict care standardization, as achieved in liver transplantation, may be a mechanism by which outcomes can be improved at safety net hospitals after other complex surgical procedures.

Incidence and Long-term Outcomes of Patients Requiring Early Reoperation After HIPEC.

BACKGROUND: Cytoreductive surgery with hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) remains a formidable operation associated with considerable morbidity. It is unclear how often these patients require reoperation for postoperative complications and if the need for reoperations leads to worse long-term outcomes. METHODS: The Peritoneal Surface Malignancy Database at a single center was retrospectively queried. Out of 149 entries, 141 HIPECs performed between 2012 and 2018 met inclusion criteria. Patients were categorized based on early reoperation (<60 d after HIPEC), and demographic and tumor factors were compared using univariate analyses. Recurrence was calculated for patients with complete cytoreduction and overall survival analyzed using the Kaplan-Meier method. RESULTS: There were 15 reoperations after 141 HIPECs (10.6%). Median duration between HIPEC and reoperation was 18 d. Indications for reoperation included intra-abdominal infection (n = 5), bowel obstruction (n = 4), wound infection (n = 3), bleeding (n = 2), and evisceration (n = 1). There were no identified patient- or tumor-related risk factors for reoperation. Reoperations were associated with longer hospital length of stay (19 versus 9 d, P = 0.005) and 30-d readmissions (46.7% versus 12.8%, P = 0.003). There was no significant difference in 3-year recurrence-free survival, but there was a significant association between reoperation and 3-year overall survival (38.0% versus 71.9%, P = 0.03). CONCLUSIONS: Complications requiring reoperation after HIPEC lead to increased short-term morbidity, longer hospital length of stay, and most importantly, reduced overall survival. Further studies investigating interventions to decrease complications and reduce reoperation rates are needed to improve outcomes after HIPEC.

The Impact of Tumor Location on Resection and Survival for Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Differences in clinical staging and survival among pancreatic head, body, and tail cancers are not well defined. We aim to identify the prognostic relevance of primary tumor location in patients undergoing treatment for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC). MATERIALS AND METHODS: The National Cancer Database was used to identify patients with PDAC from 1998 to 2011 (n = 175,556). Patients were categorized by primary tumor site into head (67.5%, n = 118,343), body (15.5%, n = 27,218), and tail (17.0%, n = 29,885) groups. Univariate and Cox regression analyses were used to determine covariates associated with overall survival (OS). RESULTS: Patients with head PDAC presented with earlier stage disease (39.2% Stage I/II versus 19.7% versus 16.0%, P < 0.001) and underwent resection more often (27.9% versus 10.7% versus 17.0%, P < 0.001) than those with body or tail tumors. Of surgically resected PDAC, those localized to the head had advanced pathologic stage (84.8% stage II/III versus 66.6% versus 65.6%, P < 0.001), higher nodal positivity (64.9% versus 45.8% versus 45%, P < 0.001), and worse tumor grade (35.9% poorly differentiated versus 29.5% versus 27.8%, P < 0.001). Despite increased utilization of adjuvant therapies (54.4% versus 45.6% versus 42.0%, P < 0.001), patients with head PDAC had inferior OS compared with those with body and tail tumors (P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: When examining patients with PDAC undergoing resection, tumor localization to the head is associated with improved resectability because they present earlier. Of resected PDACs, however, those localized to the head have worse OS compared with body and tail tumors. This discrepancy may represent a combination of lead time and selection biases and biologic differences between tumor sites.

Does Surgical Margin Impact Recurrence in Noninvasive Intraductal Papillary Mucinous Neoplasms?: A Multi-institutional Study.

OBJECTIVE: The relevance of margin positivity on recurrence after resection of intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasms (IPMNs) is poorly defined and represents one reason controversy remains regarding optimal surveillance recommendations. METHODS: Patients undergoing surgery for noninvasive IPMN at 8 academic medical centers from the Central Pancreas Consortium were analyzed. A positive margin was defined as presence of IPMN or pancreatic intraepithelial neoplasia. RESULTS: Five hundred two patients underwent surgery for IPMN; 330 (66%) did not have invasive cancer on final pathology and form the study cohort. Of these, 20% harbored high grade dysplasia. A positive margin was found in 20% of cases and was associated with multifocal disease (P = 0.02). The majority of positive margins were associated with low grade dysplasia. At a median follow-up of 36 months, 34 (10.3%) patients recurred, with 6.7% developing recurrent cystic disease and 3.6% developing invasive cancer. On multivariate analysis, margin positivity was not associated with recurrence of either IPMN or invasive cancer (P > 0.05). No association between margin status and development of recurrence at the margin was found. Only 6% of recurrences developed at the resection margin and median time to recurrence was 22 months. Of note, 18% of recurrences occurred > 5 years following surgery. CONCLUSION: Margin positivity after resection for noninvasive IPMNs is primarily due to low grade dysplasia and is not associated with developing recurrence in the remnant pancreas or at the resection margin. Long-term surveillance is required for all patients, as a significant number of recurrences developed over 5 years after the index operation.

Variability in blood transfusions after pancreaticoduodenectomy: A national analysis of the University HealthSystem Consortium.

BACKGROUND: Variability in blood use after pancreaticoduodenectomy and the associated impact on readmission, mortality, and cost is not well understood at the national level. METHODS: The University HealthSystem Consortium database was queried for all pancreaticoduodenectomies performed between the years 2011-2013 (n = 9,582). Patients were grouped according to transfusion requirements into none (0 units, 64%), low (1-2 units, 15%), medium (3-5 units, 13%), and high (>5 units, 8%). Multivariable analyses were used to determine predictors of increased transfusions, readmission, in-hospital mortality, and cost. RESULTS: Of the patients undergoing pancreaticoduodenectomy, 36% received blood perioperatively. Patients with high transfusion requirements were less often white, more often male, and had a higher severity of illness (all P < .01). High transfusion requirements correlated with higher readmission rates (OR 1.23, P = .03), cost (RR 1.84, P < .01), length of stay (18 vs. 13 vs. 10 vs. 8 days, P < .01), and in-hospital mortality (12.5% vs. 3.1% vs. 0.5% vs. 0.4%, P < .01). Higher-volume surgeons demonstrated lower transfusion requirements (OR 0.61, P < .01). CONCLUSION: Significant variability exists nationally in transfusion practices for patients undergoing pancreaticoduodenectomy, which may be driven most by severity of illness and surgeon volume. Efforts to reduce such variability could lead to improved outcomes and healthcare cost savings.

The Importance of Safety-Net Hospitals in Emergency General Surgery.

INTRODUCTION: Safety-net hospitals provide care to an inherently underprivileged patient population. These hospitals have previously been shown to have inferior surgical outcomes after complex, elective procedures, but little is known about how hospital payer-mix correlates with outcomes after more common, emergent operations. METHODS: The University HealthSystem Consortium database was queried for all emergency general surgery procedures performed from 2009 to 2015. Emergency general surgery was defined as the seven operative procedures recently identified as contributing most to the national burden. Only urgent and emergent admissions were included (n = 653,305). Procedure-specific cohorts were created and hospitals were grouped according to safety-net burden. Multivariate analyses were done to study the effect of safety-net burden on hospital outcomes. RESULTS: For all seven emergency procedures, patients at hospitals with a high safety-net burden were more likely to be young and black (p < 0.01 each). Patients at high-burden hospitals had similar severity of illness scores to those at other hospitals. Compared with lower burden hospitals, in-hospital mortality rates at high-burden hospitals were similar or lower in five of seven procedures (p = NS or < 0.01, respectively). After adjusting for patient factors, high-burden hospitals had similar or lower odds of readmission in six of seven procedures, hospital length of stay in four of seven procedures, and cost of care in three of seven procedures (p = NS or < 0.01, respectively). CONCLUSION: Safety-net hospitals provide emergency general surgery services without compromising patient outcomes or incurring greater healthcare resources. These data may help inform the vital role these institutions play in the healthcare of vulnerable patients in the USA.