Assessment of Caregivers' Burden When Caring for Patients With Pancreatic and Periampullary Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Family and other unpaid caregivers play an active role in the recovery of individuals with pancreatic and periampullary cancer after pancreatectomy. However, little is known about caregivers' experiences and how to better support them. METHODS: Caregivers accompanying patients to 1-month postpancreatectomy visits at 3 hospitals completed an electronic survey between November 2018 and February 2020. We examine measures of absenteeism and work productivity loss among the subset of caregivers who reported working for pay and comparatively assess caregiver experiences by employment status. All analyses were performed as 2-sided tests. RESULTS: Of 265 caregivers approached for study participation, 240 (90.6%) enrolled. Caregivers were primarily female (70.8% female, 29.2% male) and spouses (58.3%) or adult children (25.8%) of patients, with a median age of 60 years. Of the 240 caregivers included in the study, 107 (44.6%) worked for pay. Nearly half (44.4%) of working caregivers reported being absent from work because of caregiving amounting to a 14% loss in work hours. While at work, 58.9% of working caregivers reported increased work difficulty as a result of caregiving. Taken together, an estimated 59.7% loss in work productivity was experienced because of caregiving in the month following pancreatectomy. After adjustment for sociodemographic factors, working (vs nonworking) caregivers reported increased financial (odds ratio [OR] = 2.32; P = .04) and emotional (OR = 1.93; P = .04) difficulties and daily activity restrictions (OR = 1.85; P = .048). CONCLUSIONS: Working caregivers of patients with pancreatic and periampullary cancer experience negative impacts on work and productivity, and caregiving-related financial and emotional difficulties may be amplified. This study highlights the need for workplace policies to support unpaid cancer caregiving.

Assessment of the Long-Term Impact of Pancreatoduodenectomy on Health-Related Quality of Life Using the EORTC QLQ-PAN26 Module.

BACKGROUND: Long-term pancreatoduodenectomy (PD) survivors have previously reported favorable quality of life (QoL). However, there has been a paucity of studies utilizing pancreas-specific modules for QoL assessment, which may uncover disability that general modules cannot detect. METHODS: The European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) QLQ-C30 and QLQ-PAN26 questionnaires were administered to PD survivors who were at least 5 years out of their operations for neoplasms (1998-2011, study cohort) and compared their scores with published preoperative scores of patients with pancreatic cancer (control cohort). The clinical relevance (CR) of differences was scored as small (5-10), moderate (10-20), or large (> 20) based on validated interpretation of clinically important differences. RESULTS: Of 1266 patients who underwent PD, there were 305 survivors with valid contact information, of whom 248 responded to the questionnaire (response rate 81.3%) and made up the study cohort. The median follow-up was 9.1 years (range 5.1-21.2 years). When compared with the control cohort, patients in the study cohort reported higher pancreatic pain (41.7 ± 17.6 vs. 18.1 ± 20.5, p < 0.001, CR large), sexuality dissatisfaction (63.0 ± 37.5 vs. 35.1 ± 34.3, p < 0.001, CR large), altered bowel habits (37.6 ± 30.6 vs. 20.0 ± 24.5, p < 0.001, CR moderate), and digestive symptoms (26.3 ± 29.5 vs. 18.7 ± 27.8, p = 0.002, CR small) scores. There was a higher prevalence of bloating, indigestion, and flatulence, but lower prevalence of future health worry (71.7% vs. 89.6%, p < 0.001) and limitation in planning activities (30.1% vs. 48.3%, p < 0.001) at 5 years. CONCLUSION: While post-PD patients had better long-term global QoL than healthy controls, a more granular, pancreas-specific questionnaire uncovered digestive abnormalities and sexuality dissatisfaction. These data can better inform clinical decision making and provide potential areas for improvement and patient support.

Pearls and Pitfalls of the Virtual Interview: Perspectives From Both Sides of the Camera.

As the SARS-COV-2 pandemic created the need for social distancing and the implementation of nonessential travel bans, residency and fellowship programs have moved toward a web-based virtual process for applicant interviews. As part of the Society of Asian Academic Surgeons 5th Annual Meeting, an expert panel was convened to provide guidance for prospective applicants who are new to the process. This article provides perspectives from applicants who have successfully navigated the surgical subspecialty fellowship process, as well as program leadership who have held virtual interviews.

Patient and Caregiver Considerations and Priorities When Selecting Hospitals for Complex Cancer Care.

BACKGROUND: Healthcare policies have focused on centralizing care to high-volume centers in an effort to optimize patient outcomes; however, little is known about patients' and caregivers' considerations and selection process when selecting hospitals for care. We aim to explore how patients and caregivers select hospitals for complex cancer care and to develop a taxonomy for their selection considerations. METHODS: This was a qualitative study in which data were gathered from in-depth interviews conducted from March to November 2019 among patients with hepatopancreatobiliary cancers who were scheduled to undergo a pancreatectomy (n = 20) at a metropolitan, urban regional, or suburban medical center and their caregivers (n = 10). RESULTS: The interviews revealed six broad domains that characterized hospital selection considerations: hospital factors, team characteristics, travel distance to hospital, referral or recommendation, continuity of care, and insurance considerations. The identified domains were similar between participants seen at the metropolitan center and urban/suburban medical centers, with the following exceptions: participants receiving care specifically at the metropolitan center noted operative volume and access to specific services such as clinical trials in their hospital selection; participants receiving care at urban/suburban centers noted health insurance considerations and having access to existing medical records in their hospital selection. CONCLUSIONS: This study delineates the many considerations of patients and caregivers when selecting hospitals for complex cancer care. These identified domains should be incorporated into the development and implementation of centralization policies to help increase patient access to high-quality cancer care that is consistent with their priorities and needs.

Simulated Volume-Based Regionalization of Complex Procedures: Impact on Spatial Access to Care.

OBJECTIVE: This study simulates the regionalization of pancreatectomies to assess its impact on spatial access in terms of patient driving times. BACKGROUND: Although policies to regionalize complex procedures to high-volume centers may improve outcomes, the impact on patient access is unknown. METHODS: Patients who underwent pancreatectomies from 2005 to 2014 were identified from California's statewide database. Round-trip driving times between patients' home ZIP code and hospital addresses were calculated via Google Maps. Regionalization was simulated by eliminating hospitals performing <20 pancreatectomies/yr, and reassigning patients to the next closest hospital that satisfied the volume threshold. Sensitivity analyses were performed for New York and Medicare patients to assess for influence of geography and insurance coverage, respectively. RESULTS: Of 13,317 pancreatectomies, 6335 (47.6%) were performed by hospitals with <20 cases/yr. Patients traveled a median of 49.8 minutes [interquartile range (IQR) 30.8-96.2] per round-trip. A volume-restriction policy would increase median round-trip driving time by 24.1 minutes (IQR 4.5-53.5). Population in-hospital mortality rates were estimated to decrease from 6.7% to 2.8% (P < 0.001). Affected patients were more likely to be racial minorities (44.6% vs 36.5% of unaffected group, P < 0.001) and covered by Medicaid or uninsured (16.3% vs 9.8% of unaffected group, P < 0.001). Sensitivity analyses revealed a 17.8 minutes increment for patients in NY (IQR 0.8-47.4), and 27.0 minutes increment for Medicare patients (IQR 6.2-57.1). CONCLUSIONS: A policy that limits access to low-volume pancreatectomy hospitals will increase round-trip driving time by 24 minutes, but up to 54 minutes for 25% of patients. Population mortality rates may improve by 1.5%.

Variation in long-term oncologic outcomes by type of cancer center accreditation: An analysis of a SEER-Medicare population with pancreatic cancer.

BACKGROUND: Cancer center accreditation is designed to identify centers that provide high-quality cancer care. This also guides patients and referring physicians towards centers of excellence for specialized care. We sought to examine if cancer center accreditation was associated with improved long-term oncologic outcomes in patients with pancreatic adenocarcinoma. METHODS: Using the SEER-Medicare database, we identified patients who underwent pancreatectomy for pancreatic adenocarcinoma from 1996 to 2013. Hospitals were categorized into three groups: National Cancer Institute-designated (NCI-designated) centers, Commission on Cancer (CoC)-accredited centers, and "non-accredited" (NA) centers. Multilevel mixed-effects models were used to calculate adjusted examined lymph nodes, disease-specific survival (DSS), and overall survival (OS). RESULTS: We identified 5,118 patients who underwent pancreatectomy at 632 hospitals (41.0% NA, 49.6% CoC, 9.4% NCI). NCI-designated centers had a greater median number of lymph nodes examined compared with CoC-accredited or NA centers (14 vs. 10 vs. 11.0 nodes, respectively; p < 0.001). Patients treated at NCI centers had a higher 5-year DSS compared to those treated at CoC or NA centers (31.2% vs. 23.6% vs. 23.0%, respectively; p < 0.001). Finally, patients treated at NCI centers had a higher 5-year OS compared to those treated at CoC or NA centers (23.5% vs. 18.9% vs. 17.9%, respectively; p < 0.001). The associations held true when adjusted analyses were performed. CONCLUSION: Patients with resected pancreatic cancer treated at NCI-designated centers were associated with improved long-term oncologic outcomes. There was no difference between CoC-accredited centers compared with NA centers. Meticulous validation of accreditation is warranted globally prior to implementation.

Index and follow-up costs of endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair from the Endurant Stent Graft System Post Approval Study (ENGAGE PAS).

OBJECTIVE: Trials for endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) report lower perioperative mortality and morbidity, but also higher costs compared with open repair. However, few studies have examined the subsequent cost of follow-up evaluations and interventions. Therefore, we present the index and 5-year follow-up costs of EVAR from the Endurant Stent Graft System Post Approval Study. METHODS: From August 2011 to June 2012, 178 patients were enrolled in the Endurant Stent Graft System Post Approval Study de novo cohort and treated with the Medtronic Endurant stent graft system (Medtronic Vascular, Santa Rosa, Calif), of whom 171 (96%) consented for inclusion in the economic analysis and 177 participated in the quality-of-life (QOL) assessment over a 5-year follow-up period. Cost data for the index and follow-up hospitalizations were tabulated directly from hospital bills and categorized by Uniform Billing codes. Surgeon costs were calculated by Current Procedural Terminology codes for each intervention. Current Procedural Terminology codes were also used to calculate imaging and clinic follow-up reimbursement as surrogate to cost based on year-specific Medicare payment rates. Additionally, we compared aneurysm-related versus nonaneurysm-related subsequent hospitalization costs and report EuroQol 5D QOL dimensions. RESULTS: The mean hospital cost per person for the index EVAR was $45,304 (interquartile range [IQR], $25,932-$44,784). The largest contributor to the overall cost was operating room supplies, which accounted for 50% of the total cost at a mean of $22,849 per person. One hundred patients had 233 additional post index admission inpatient admissions; however, only 32 readmissions (14%) were aneurysm related, with a median cost of $13,119 (IQR, $4570-$24,153) compared with a nonaneurysm-related median cost of $6609 (IQR, $1244-$26,466). Additionally, 32 patients were admitted a total of 37 times for additional procedures after index admission, of which 14 (38%) were aneurysm-related. The median cost of hospitalization for aneurysm-related subsequent intervention was $22,023 (IQR, $13,177-$47,752), compared with a median nonaneurysm-related subsequent intervention cost of $19,007 (IQR, $8708-$33,301). After the initial 30-day visit, outpatient follow-up imaging reimbursement averaged $550 per person per year ($475 for computed tomography scans, $75 for the abdomen), whereas annual office visits averaged $107 per person per year, for a total follow-up reimbursement of $657 per person per year. There were no significant differences in the five EuroQol 5D QOL dimensions at each follow-up compared with baseline. CONCLUSIONS: Costs associated with index EVAR are driven primarily by cost of operating room supplies, including graft components. Subsequent admissions are largely not aneurysm related; however, cost of aneurysm-related hospitalizations is higher than for nonaneurysm admissions. These data will serve as a baseline for comparison with open repair and other devices.

Health-related Quality of Life and Functional Outcomes in 5-year Survivors After Pancreaticoduodenectomy.

OBJECTIVE: Our aim was to assess quality of life (QOL) and functionality in a large cohort of patients ≥5-years after pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD). BACKGROUND: Long-term QOL outcomes after PD for benign or malignant disease are largely undocumented. METHODS: We administered the EORTC QLQ-C30 questionnaire to patients who underwent PD for neoplasms from 1998 to 2011 and compared their scores with an age- and sex-matched normal population. Clinical relevance (CR) of differences was scored as small (5-10), moderate (10-20), or large (>20) based on validated interpretation of clinically important differences. RESULTS: Of 305 PD survivors, 245 (80.3%) responded, of whom 157 (64.1%) underwent PD for nonmalignant lesions. Median follow-up was 9.1 years (range 5.1 -21.2 yrs). New-onset diabetes developed in 10.6%; 50.4% reported taking pancreatic enzymes; 54.6% reported needing antacids. Compared with the age- and sex-adjusted controls, PD survivors demonstrated higher global QOL (78.7 vs 69.7, CR small, P < 0.001), physical (86.7 vs 77.9, CR small, P < 0.001) and role-functioning scores (86.3 vs 74.1, CR medium, P < 0.001). Using linear regression and adjusting for socioeconomic variables, there were no differences in QOL or functional scores in the benign versus malignant subgroups. Older age at operation was associated with worse physical-functioning (-0.4/yr, P = 0.008). Taking pancrelipase (-6.8, P = 0.035) or antacids (-6.3, P = 0.044) were both associated with lower social-functioning scores. CONCLUSIONS: Patients who had a PD demonstrated better global QOL, physical- and role-functioning scores at 5-years when compared with age- and sex-matched controls. Approximately half of the patients required pancreatic enzyme replacement, while only 11% developed new-onset diabetes.

Potential impact of a volume pledge on spatial access: A population-level analysis of patients undergoing pancreatectomy.

BACKGROUND: A minimum-volume policy restricting hospitals not meeting the threshold from performing complex operation may increase travel burden and decrease spatial access to operation. We aim to identify vulnerable populations that would be sensitive to an added travel burden. METHODS: We performed a retrospective analysis of the database of the California Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development for patients undergoing pancreatectomy from 2005 to 2014. Number of hospitals bypassed was used as a metric for travel. Patients bypassing fewer hospitals were deemed to be more sensitive to an added travel burden. RESULTS: There were 13,374 patients who underwent a pancreatectomy, of whom 2,368 (17.7%) were nonbypassers. On unadjusted analysis, patients >80 year old travelled less than their younger counterparts, bypassing a mean of 10.9 ± 9.5 hospitals compared with 14.2 ± 21.3 hospitals bypassed by the 35-49 year old age group (P < .001). Racial minorities travelled less when compared with non-Hispanic whites (P < .001). Patients identifying their payer status as self-pay (8.9 ± 15.6 hospitals bypassed) and Medicaid (10.1 ± 17.2 hospitals bypassed) also travelled less when compared with patients with private insurance (13.8 ± 20.4 hospitals bypassed, P < .001). On multivariate analysis, advanced age, racial minority, and patients with self-pay or Medicaid payer status were associated independently with increased sensitivity to an added travel burden. CONCLUSION: In patients undergoing pancreatectomy, the elderly, racial minorities, and patients with self-pay or Medicaid payer status were associated with an increased sensitivity to an added travel burden. This vulnerable cohort may be affected disproportionately by a minimum-volume policy.

The Resident-Run Minor Surgery Clinic: A Pilot Study to Safely Increase Operative Autonomy.

OBJECTIVE: General surgery training has evolved to align with changes in work hour restrictions, supervision regulations, and reimbursement practices. This has culminated in a lack of operative autonomy, leaving residents feeling inadequately prepared to perform surgery independently when beginning fellowship or practice. A resident-run minor surgery clinic increases junior resident autonomy, but its effects on patient outcomes have not been formally established. This pilot study evaluated the safety of implementing a resident-run minor surgery clinic within a university-based general surgery training program. DESIGN: Single institution case-control pilot study of a resident-run minor surgery clinic from 9/2014 to 6/2015. Rotating third-year residents staffed the clinic once weekly. Residents performed operations independently in their own procedure room. A supervising attending surgeon staffed each case prior to residents performing the procedure and viewed the surgical site before wound closure. Postprocedure patient complications and admissions to the hospital because of a complication were analyzed and compared with an attending control cohort. SETTING: Massachusetts General Hospital General in Boston, MA; an academic tertiary care general surgery residency program. PARTICIPANTS: Ten third-year general surgery residents. RESULTS: Overall, 341 patients underwent a total of 399 procedures (110 in the resident clinic vs. 289 in the attending clinic). Minor surgeries included soft tissue mass excision (n = 275), abscess incision and drainage (n = 66), skin lesion excision (n = 37), skin tag removal (n = 15), and lymph node excision (n = 6). There was no significant difference in the overall rate of patients developing a postprocedure complication within 30 days (3.6% resident vs. 2.8% attending; p = 0.65); which persisted on multivariate analysis. Similar findings were observed for the rate of hospital admission resulting from a complication. Resident evaluations overwhelmingly supported the rotation, citing increased operative autonomy as the greatest strength. CONCLUSIONS: Implementation of a resident-run minor surgery clinic is a safe and effective method to increase trainee operative autonomy. The rotation is well suited for mid-level residents, as it provides an opportunity for realistic self-evaluation and focused learning that may enhance their operative experience during senior level rotations.