Preoperative radiation therapy increases adherence in patients with high-risk extremity soft tissue sarcoma.

BACKGROUND: Surgery and radiation therapy remain the standard of care for patients with high-grade extremity soft tissue sarcoma that are >5 cm. Radiation therapy is time and labor-intensive for patients, and social determinants of health may affect adherence. The aim of this study was to define demographic, clinical, and treatment factors associated with the completion of radiation therapy and determine if preoperative radiation therapy improved adherence compared to postoperative radiation therapy. METHODS: The cohort included patients in the National Cancer Database with high-grade extremity soft tissue sarcoma >5 cm without nodal or distant metastases who received limb-sparing surgery and radiation therapy with microscopically negative R0 margins. Multivariable logistic regression analyses identified factors associated with radiation therapy sequencing and adherence (defined as completion of 50 Gy preoperative radiation therapy or at least 60 Gy postoperative radiation therapy). A multivariable Cox Proportional Hazards model assessed overall survival. RESULTS: Among 2,145 patients, 47.1% received preoperative radiation therapy (n = 1,010), and 52.9% (n = 1135) received postoperative radiation therapy. A greater proportion of patients treated with preoperative (77.2%) versus postoperative radiation therapy (64.9%, P < .0001) received the recommended dose. More patients with private insurance (49.8% vs 35.3% Medicaid vs 44.9% Medicare, P = .011) and patients treated at an academic medical center (52.6% vs 47.4%, P < .001) received preoperative radiation therapy. Patients who received preoperative radiation therapy had lower odds of receiving insufficient doses of radiation therapy (odds ratio 0.34 [95% CI 0.27-0.47]). Neither radiation therapy adherence nor sequencing were independent predictors of overall survival. CONCLUSIONS: Patients who received preoperative radiation therapy were more likely to complete therapy and receive an optimal dose than patients treated with postoperative radiation therapy. Preoperative radiation therapy improves adherence and should be widely considered in patients with high-grade extremity soft tissue sarcoma, particularly in patients at risk for not completing therapy.

Disparities in Care Access to Liver-Directed Therapy Among Medicare Beneficiaries with Colorectal Cancer Liver Metastasis.

BACKGROUND: Liver-directed therapies (LDT) are important components of the multidisciplinary care of patients with colorectal cancer liver metastases (CRCLM) that contribute to improved long-term outcomes. Factors associated with receipt of LDT are poorly understood. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients > 65 years old diagnosed with CRCLM were identified within the Medicare Standard Analytic File (2013-2017). Patients with extrahepatic metastatic disease were excluded. Mixed-effects analyses were used to assess patient factors associated with the primary outcome of LDT, defined as hepatectomy, ablation, and/or hepatic artery infusion chemotherapy (HAIC), as well as the secondary outcome of hepatectomy. RESULTS: Among 23,484 patients with isolated CRCLM, only 2004 (8.5%) received LDT, although resectability status could not be determined for the entire cohort. Among patients who received LDT, 61.7% underwent hepatectomy alone, 28.1% received ablation alone, 8.5% underwent hepatectomy and ablation, and 1.8% received HAIC either alone (0.8%) or in combination with hepatectomy and/or ablation (0.9%). Patient factors independently associated with lower odds of LDT included older age, female sex, Black race, greater comorbidity burden, higher social vulnerability index, primary rectal cancer, synchronous liver metastasis, and further distance from a high-volume liver surgery center (p < 0.05). Results were similar for receipt of hepatectomy. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the well-accepted role of LDT for CRCLM, only a small proportion of Medicare beneficiaries with CRCLM receive LDT. Increasing access to specialized centers with expertise in LDT, particularly for Black patients, female patients, and those with higher levels of social vulnerability or long travel distances, may improve outcomes for patients with CRCLM.

Impact of hospital quality on surgical outcomes in patients with high social vulnerability: Association of textbook outcomes and social vulnerability by hospital quality.

BACKGROUND: We sought to define the impact of high- versus low-quality hospitals on the risk of adverse outcomes among patients undergoing hepatopancreatic surgery relative to social vulnerability. Social vulnerability is an important factor associated with risk of adverse postoperative outcomes. METHODS: Patients from 2013 to 2017 were identified from the Medicare Inpatient Standard Analytic File. Hospital quality was determined by calculating risk-adjusted probability to achieve a textbook outcome. The Social Vulnerability Index was used to categorize patients. Risk-adjusted probability of mortality, morbidity, and textbook outcome was examined across varying social vulnerability indices stratified by low-, average-, and high-quality hospitals. RESULTS: Among 27,000 patients who underwent a pancreatectomy (67%) or hepatectomy (33%%), median patient age was 72 years, 48% were female, and 89% were White; mean Social Vulnerability Index was 49. Risk-adjusted 90-day mortality (odds ratio: 1.32, 95% CI: 1.20-1.59, P = .004) and postoperative complications (odds ratio: 1.12, 95% confidence interval: 1.00-1.24, P = .044) were both higher among beneficiaries from the highest social vulnerability counties versus the lowest counties. At low-quality hospitals, patients from the highest vulnerability counties had 70% higher odds of mortality (odds ratio: 1.70, 95% confidence interval: 1.16-2.48, P = .007), 31% higher odds of overall morbidity odds ratio: 1.31, 95% confidence interval: 1.05-2.63, P = .013), and 19% lower odds of achieving a textbook outcome (odds ratio: 0.81, 95% confidence interval: 0.66-0.99, P = .035)-all of which were markedly worse compared with outcomes achieved at high-quality hospitals. CONCLUSION: Among patients with increased social vulnerability, outcomes were considerably better at high-quality hospitals. Referral of socially vulnerable patients to high-quality hospitals represents an important opportunity to ensure optimal outcomes after complex surgery.

Trends in Textbook Outcomes over Time: Are Optimal Outcomes Following Complex Gastrointestinal Surgery for Cancer Increasing?

BACKGROUND: The use of composite measures like "textbook outcome" (TO) may provide a more accurate measure of surgical quality. We sought to determine if TO has improved over time and to characterize the association of achieving a TO with trends in survival among patients undergoing complex gastrointestinal surgery for cancer. METHODS: Medicare beneficiaries who underwent pancreas, liver, or colon resection for a cancer diagnosis between 2004 and 2016 were identified using the SEER-Medicare database. Rates of TO (no complication, extended length of stay, 90-day readmission, or 90-day mortality) were assessed over time. RESULTS: Among 94,329 patients, 6765 (7.2%), 1985 (2.1%), and 85,579 (90.7%) patients underwent resection for primary pancreatic, hepatic, or colon cancer, respectively. In total, 53,464 (56.7%) patients achieved a TO; achievement of TO varied by procedure (pancreatectomy: 48.1% vs. hepatectomy: 55.2% vs. colectomy: 57.4%, p < 0.001). The proportion of patients achieving a textbook outcome increased over time for all patients (2004-2007, 53.3% vs. 2008-2011, 56.5% vs. 2012-2016, 60.1%) (5-year increase: OR 1.16 95%CI 1.13-1.18) (p < 0.001). Survival at 1-year following pancreatic, liver, or colon resection for cancer had improved over time among both patients who did and did not achieve a postoperative TO. TO was independently associated with a marked reduction in hazard of death (HR 0.44, 95%CI 0.43-0.45). The association of TO and survival was consistent among patients stratified by procedure. CONCLUSION: Less than two-thirds of patients undergoing complex gastrointestinal surgery for a malignant indication achieved a TO. The likelihood of achieving a TO increased over time and was associated with improved survival.

Impact of cancer center accreditation on outcomes of patients undergoing resection for hepatocellular carcinoma: A SEER-Medicare analysis.

BACKGROUND: We sought to assess variations in outcomes among patients undergoing resection for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) at centers with varied accreditation status. METHODS: Patients undergoing resection for HCC from 2004 to 2016 were identified from the linked SEER-Medicare database. Short- and long-term outcomes as well as expenditures associated with receipt of surgery were examined based on cancer center accreditation. RESULTS: Among 1390 patients, 46.1% (n = 641) were treated at unaccredited centers, 39.3% (n = 546) at CoC-accredited and 14.6% (n = 203) at NCI-designated centers. Patients undergoing resection of HCC at NCI-designated hospitals had lower odds of complications (OR = 0.66, 95%CI: 0.45-0.98) and 90-day mortality (OR = 0.31, 95%CI: 0.11-0.85) after major liver resection compared with individuals treated at CoC-accredited centers. Receipt of surgery at NCI-designated hospitals (ref: CoC-accredited; HR = 0.81, 95%CI: 0.66-0.99) was an independent predictor of improved survival. Medicare payments for liver resection were comparable at different accreditation status centers (NCI: $21,760 vs CoC: $24,059 vs unaccredited: $24,724, p = 0.18). CONCLUSION: Patients undergoing resection of HCC at NCI-designated hospitals had improved outcomes for the same level of Medicare expenditure compared with patients treated at CoC-accredited centers.

Resection of Primary Gastrointestinal Neuroendocrine Tumor Among Patients with Non-Resected Metastases Is Associated with Improved Survival: A SEER-Medicare Analysis.

BACKGROUND: The objective of this study was to analyze whether primary tumor resection (PTR) among patients with stage IV gastrointestinal neuroendocrine tumor (GI-NET) and unresected metastases was associated with improved outcomes. METHODS: Patients diagnosed with stage IV GI-NETs were identified in the linked SEER-Medicare database from 2004 to 2015. Overall survival (OS) of patients who did versus did not undergo PTR was examined using bivariate and multivariable cox regression analysis as well as propensity score matching (PSM). RESULTS: Among 2219 patients with metastatic GI-NETs, 632 (28.5%) underwent PTR, whereas 1587 (71.5%) did not. The majority of individuals had a NET in the pancreas (n = 969, 43.6%); the most common site of metastatic disease was the liver (n = 1064, 47.9%). Patients with stage IV small intestinal NETs most frequently underwent PTR (62.6%) followed by individuals with colon NETs (56.5%). After adjusting for all competing factors, PTR remained independently associated with improved OS (HR = 0.65, 95% CI: 0.56-0.76). Following PSM (n = 236 per group), patients who underwent PTR had improved OS (median OS: 1.3 years vs 0.8 years, p = 0.016). While PTR of NETs originating from stomach, small intestine, colon, and pancreas was associated with improved OS, PTR of rectal NET did not yield a survival benefit. CONCLUSION: Primary GI-NET resection was associated with a survival benefit among individuals presenting with metastatic GI-NET with unresected metastases. Resection of primary GI-NET among patients with stage IV disease and unresected metastases should only be performed in selected cases following multi-disciplinary evaluation.

The impact of individual surgeon on the likelihood of minimal invasive surgery among Medicare beneficiaries undergoing pancreatic resection.

BACKGROUND: The objective of the current study was to evaluate the impact of the individual surgeon on the use of minimally invasive pancreatic resection. METHODS: The Medicare 100% Standard Analytic Files were reviewed to identify Medicare beneficiaries who underwent pancreatic resection between 2013 and 2017. The impact of patient- and procedure-related factors on the likelihood of minimally invasive pancreatic resection was investigated. RESULTS: A total of 12,652 (85.4%) patients underwent open pancreatic resection, whereas minimally invasive pancreatic resection was performed in 2,155 (14.6%) patients. Unadjusted rates of minimally invasive pancreatic resection ranged from 0% in the bottom volume tertile to 35.3% in the top tertile. Although patients with emergency admission were less likely to undergo minimally invasive pancreatic resection (odds ratio = 0.43, 95% confidence interval 0.32-0.58), patients operated on more recently had a higher chance of minimally invasive pancreatic resection (year 2017; odds ratio = 1.51, 95% confidence interval 1.28-1.79). On multivariable analysis, there was over a 3-fold variation in the odds that a patient underwent minimally invasive versus open pancreatic resection based on the individual surgeon (median odds ratio = 3.27, 95% confidence interval 2.98-3.56). Patients who underwent pancreatectomy by a low-volume, minimally invasive pancreatic resection surgeon had higher odds of 90-day mortality after surgery (odds ratio = 1.33, 95% confidence interval: 1.16-1.59), as well as higher observed/expected mortality compared with individuals treated by high-volume surgeons. CONCLUSION: The likelihood of undergoing minimally invasive pancreatic resection among Medicare beneficiaries was markedly influenced by the individual treating surgeon rather than patient- or procedure-level factors.

Inter-surgeon variability is associated with likelihood to undergo minimally invasive hepatectomy and postoperative mortality.

INTRODUCTION: Minimally invasive liver surgery (MILS) has been increasingly adopted in clinical practice; yet, inter-surgeon variability in operative approach (MILS vs. open), as well as the impact of providers on the likelihood of undergoing MILS have not been well characterized. METHODS: The Medicare 100% Standard Analytic Files were reviewed to identify Medicare beneficiaries who underwent hepatectomy between 2013 - 2017. The impact of patient- and procedure- related factors on the likelihood of MILS was investigated. RESULTS: Overall 12,110 (91.6%) patients underwent open liver resection, while 1,112 (8.4%) patients had MILS. Based on total MILS volume, surgeons were categorized into average (1-3 cases), above average (4-7 cases) and high (>8 or more cases) MILS volume surgeons. While male patients (OR = 0.85, 95%CI 0.75-0.97) were less likely to undergo MILS, patients operated on more recently (year 2017; OR = 1.72, 95%CI 1.38-2.14) for a cancer indication (OR = 1.23, 95%CI 1.05-1.42) had a higher chance of MILS. After controlling for patient- and procedure-related characteristics, there was almost a two-fold variation in the odds that a patient underwent MILS versus open hepatectomy based on the individual surgeon provider (MOR = 1.75, 95%CI 1.48-1.99). Patients who had a MILS performed by a high-volume MILS surgeon had 36% lower odds of death within 90-days (OR = 0.64, 95%CI 0.51-0.79). CONCLUSION: The likelihood of undergoing MILS, as well as post-operative mortality, was heavily influenced by the individual surgeon provider rather than patient- or procedure-related factors.

Robotic distal pancreatectomy: cost effective?

BACKGROUND: Minimally invasive techniques and even robotics in pancreaticobiliary surgery are being used increasingly. Cost-effectiveness is a practical burden associated with the introduction of surgical innovation. This study compares the costs and the outcomes of open, laparoscopic, and robotic distal pancreatectomies. We hypothesized that robotic distal pancreatectomy is cost-effective. METHODS: Between August 2008 and August 2009, 77 distal pancreatectomies were performed at a single academic medical center. A retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data on demographics, short-term outcomes, and direct cost was performed. RESULTS: Thirty-two open distal pancreatectomies, 28 laparoscopic distal pancreatectomies, and 17 robotic distal pancreatectomies were performed. Age, American Society of Anesthesia preoperative risk score, and specimen length were similar. Indications for laparoscopic distal pancreatectomies and robotic distal pancreatectomies included more cystic neoplasms (49%) and fewer malignancies (29%) versus open distal pancreatectomies (16% and 47%). Spleen preservation occurred in 65% robotic distal pancreatectomies versus 12% and 29% in open distal pancreatectomies and laparoscopic distal pancreatectomies (P < .05). The operative time averaged 298 minutes in robotic distal pancreatectomies versus 245 and 222 minutes in open distal pancreatectomies and laparoscopic distal pancreatectomies (P < .05). Blood loss and morbidity were similar with no mortality. The length of stay was 4 days in robotic distal pancreatectomies versus 8 and 6 in open distal pancreatectomies and laparoscopic distal pancreatectomies (P < .05). The total cost was $10,588 in robotic distal pancreatectomies versus $16,059 and $12,986 in open distal pancreatectomies and laparoscopic distal pancreatectomies. CONCLUSION: These data suggest direct hospital costs are comparable among all groups. They suggest a shorter length of stay in robotic versus laparoscopic or open approaches. Finally, spleen and vessel preservation rates may improve with a robotic approach at the expense of increased operative time. In summary, robotic distal pancreatectomy is safe and cost effective in selected cases.