Feasibility of perioperative remote monitoring of patient-generated health data in complex surgical oncology.

BACKGROUND: The feasibility of remote perioperative telemonitoring of patient-generated physiologic health data and patient-reported outcomes in a high risk complex general and urologic oncology surgery population is evaluated. METHODS: Complex general surgical/urologic oncology patients wore a pedometer, completed ePROs (electronic patient-reported outcome surveys) and record their vitals (weight, pulse, pulse oximetry, blood pressure, and temperature) via a telehealth app platform. Feasibility (% adherence) was assessed as the primary outcome measure. RESULTS: Twenty-one patients with a median age 58 (32-82) years were included. The readmission rate was 33% and the incidence of ≥Grade 3a morbidity was 24%. Adherence to vital sign and ePRO measurements was 95% before surgery, 91% at discharge, and 82%, 68%, and 64% at postdischarge d2, 7, 14, and 30, respectively. There was significant worsening of mobility, self-care and usual daily activity at postdischarge d2 compared to preoperative baseline (p < 0.05). Median daily preoperative steps taken by patients with

Emotional Distress and Financial Toxicity in Younger Adult Patients Undergoing Oncologic Surgery.

BACKGROUND: There has been an alarming increase in the number of young adults (YA) diagnosed with cancer. The emotional, psychosocial, and financial distress experienced by newly diagnosed YA undergoing cancer surgery remains largely unknown. METHODS: A validated biopsychosocial distress screening tool (SupportScreen) was administered to patients diagnosed with cancer before surgery between 2009 and 2017 in a National Cancer Institute Comprehensive Cancer Center. Patients were stratified into YA less than or equal to 45 years and older adults (OA) above 45 years. Descriptive statistics and logistic regression were used to analyze distress outcomes. RESULTS: In total, 4297 patients were identified, with YA comprising 13.3% (n=573) of the cohort. YA reported higher emotional distress, including increased anxiety (33.8% vs 27.4%, P =0.002), greater fear of procedures (26.7% vs 22%, P =0.018), and difficulty managing emotions (26% vs 20.7%, P =0.006). YA struggled more frequently to manage work/school (29.5% vs 19.3%, P <0.001), finding resources (17.8% vs 11.8%, P <0.001), changes in physical appearance (22.2% vs 13.4%, P <0.001), fatigue (36% vs 27.3%, P <0.001), and ability to have children (18.4% vs 3%, P <0.001). Financial toxicity was significantly higher in the YA group (40.5% vs 28%, P <0.001). While income level was strongly protective against emotional distress and financial toxicity in OAs, it was less protective against the risk of financial toxicity in YA. Younger age was an independent predictor of financial toxicity in a model adjusted to income (odds ratio=1.52, P =0.020). CONCLUSIONS: YA in the prime of their personal and professional years of productivity require special attention when undergoing surgical evaluation for cancer. Resource allocation and counseling interventions should be integrated as part of their routine care to expedite their return to optimal physical and holistic health and mitigate psychosocial distress and financial toxicity.

Academic Productivity in Hepatopancreatobiliary Surgeons: Identifying Benchmarks Associated With Rank in North America.

BACKGROUND: Academic achievement is an integral part of the promotion process; however, there are no standardized metrics for faculty or leadership to reference in assessing this potential for promotion. The aim of this study was to identify metrics that correlate with academic rank in hepatopancreaticobiliary (HPB) surgeons. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Faculty was identified from 17 fellowship council accredited HPB surgery fellowships in the United States and Canada. The number of publications, citations, h-index values, and National Institutes of Health (NIH) funding for each faculty member was captured. RESULTS: Of 111 surgeons identified, there were 31 (27%) assistant, 39 (35%) associate, and 41 (36%) full professors. On univariate analysis, years in practice, h-index, and a history of NIH funding were significantly associated with a surgeon's academic rank (P < .05). Years in practice and h-index remained significant on multivariate analysis (P < .001). DISCUSSION: Academic productivity metrics including h-index and NIH funding are associated with promotion to the next academic rank.

Robotic minor hepatectomy: optimizing outcomes and cost of care.

BACKGROUND: The advantages of robotic liver surgery are strongest for minor resections, where incision size drives recovery time, but cost remains a concern. We hypothesized that patients who underwent robotic minor liver resections would have superior peri-operative outcomes resulting in decreased cost. METHODS: We queried the medical record and cost data for patients who underwent open or robotic minor (1-2 segment) liver resection from 1/2016-8/2019. Financial data were normalized to Medicare reimbursements. RESULTS: There were 87 patients who underwent minor liver resections (robotic n = 46, open n = 41). Specimen size (173 ± 203 vs 257 ± 481 cm3), surgical duration (233 ± 87 vs 227 ± 83 min), estimated blood loss (187 ± 236 vs 194 ± 165 mL), and margin status (89% vs 93% R0) were similar for robotic and open resections respectively, yet complications (3/46, 7% vs 10/41, 24%, p = 0.02) and length of stay (2.2 ± 2.2 vs 6.2 ± 2.9, p < 0.001) were significantly lower for patients who underwent robotic resection. These factors contributed to minor robotic liver resections costing $534 less than open resections ($3597 ± 1823 vs $4131 ± 1532, p = 0.03). CONCLUSION: Patients undergoing robotic minor hepatectomy had superior peri-operative outcomes resulting in lower total cost of care when compared to open minor hepatectomy. Financial considerations should not adversely influence selection of a robotic approach for minor hepatectomy.

Functional Impairments and Quality of Life in Older Adults With Upper Gastrointestinal Cancers.

BACKGROUND: Functional impairments (measured by activities of daily living [ADLs]) and health-related quality of life (HRQOL) may complicate outcomes in older adults diagnosed with cancer. In this retrospective cohort analysis, we characterized ADLs and HRQOL in adults older than 65 y with upper gastrointestinal (UGI) cancers and evaluated for an association to cancer-specific survival. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients with UGI cancers aged 65 y or older were selected from the Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results and the Medicare Health Outcomes Survey-linked database. Demographics, comorbidities, stage, ADLs, and HRQOL were summarized by patients managed with and without surgery. Because of the wide variety of cancers, we subdivided patients into cohorts of esophagogastric [EG; n = 88] or hepatobiliary/pancreatic [n = 68]. Cancer-specific survival curves were modeled for changes in ADL and HRQOL scores after diagnosis. Risk factors for cancer-specific survival were assessed with hazard ratios (HRs) and adjusted for demographics, stage, comorbidities, and disease cohorts. RESULTS: HRQOL scores declined after diagnosis, with a sharper decline in nonsurgery patients. On multivariate analysis, inability to perform specific ADLs was associated with worse survival in multiple cohorts: hepatobiliary/pancreatic nonsurgery patients unable to eat (HR 3.3 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.7-6.5); all patients with EG unable to use the toilet (HR 3.3 95% CI 1.5-7.9); EG nonsurgery cohort unable to dress or use the toilet (dress HR 14.1 95% CI 4.0-49.0; toilet HR 4.7 95% CI 1.8-12.3). CONCLUSIONS: Older survivors with UGI cancers report declines in HRQOL, especially those not undergoing surgery. The ability to perform ADLs may be linked to survival in this population.

The impact of financial toxicity in gastrointestinal cancer patients.

BACKGROUND: Biopsychosocial distress screening is a critical component of comprehensive cancer care. Financial issues are a common source of distress in this patient population. This study uses a biopsychosocial distress screening tool to determine the factors associated with financial toxicity and the impact of these stressors on gastrointestinal cancer patients. METHODS: A 48-question, proprietary distress screening tool was administered to patients with gastrointestinal malignancies from 2009 to 2015. This validated, electronically-administered tool is given to all new patients. Responses were recorded on a 5-point Likert scale from 1 (not a problem) to 5 (very severe problem), with responses rated at ≥3 indicative of distress. Univariate and multivariate logistic regressions were used to analyze the data. RESULTS: Most of the 1,027 patients had colorectal (50%) or hepatobiliary (31%) malignancies. Additionally, 34% of all patients expressed a high level of financial toxicity. Age greater than 65 (odds ratio: 0.63, 95% confidence interval: 0.47-0.86, P < .01), college education (odds ratio: 0.53, 95% confidence interval: 0.38-0.73, P < .0001), being partnered (odds ratio: 0.61, 95% confidence interval: 0.44-0.84, P < .01), and annual income greater than $40,000 (odds ratio: 0.27, 95% confidence interval: 0.19-0.38, P < .0001) were all protective against financial toxicity on univariate analysis. Also, heavy tobacco use was associated significantly with increased distress on univariate analysis (odds ratio: 2.79, 95% confidence interval: 1.38-5.78, P < .01). With the exception of partnered status (odds ratio: 1.18, 95% confidence interval: 0.76-1.85, P = .46), all these variables retained their significant association with financial toxicity in the multivariate model. CONCLUSION: Financial toxicity impacts a large number of cancer patients. Further study of at-risk populations may identify patients who would benefit from pre-emptive education and counseling interventions as part of their routine cancer care.

Minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy and the cost of conversion.

BACKGROUND: Minimally invasive surgery (MIS) is preferred for distal pancreatectomy but is not always attempted due to the risk of conversion to open. We hypothesized that the total cost for MIS converted to open procedures would be comparable to those that started open. METHODS: A prospectively collected institutional registry (2011-2017) was reviewed for demographic, clinical, and perioperative cost data for patients undergoing distal pancreatectomy. RESULTS: There were 80 patients who underwent distal pancreatectomy: 41 open, 39 MIS (11 laparoscopic and 28 robotic). Conversion to open occurred in 14 of 39 (36%, 3 laparoscopic and 11 robotic). Length of stay was shorter for the MIS completed (6 days; range, 3-8), and MIS converted to open (7 days; range, 4-10) groups, compared with open (10 days; range, 5-36; P = .003). Laparoscopic cases were the least expensive (P = .02). Robotic converted to open procedures had the highest operating room cost. However, the total cost for robotic converted to open cohort was similar to the open cohort due to cost savings associated with a shorter length of stay. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the higher intraoperative costs of robotic surgery, there is no significant overall financial penalty for conversion to open. Financial considerations should not play a role in selecting a robotic or open approach.

Academic productivity in surgical oncology: Where is the bar set for those training the next generation?

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Promotion and tenure are important milestones for academic surgical oncologists. The aim of this study was to quantify academic metrics associated with rank in surgical oncologists training the next generation. METHODS: Faculty were identified from accredited surgical oncology fellowships in the United States. Scopus was used to obtain the number of publications/citations and h-index values. The National Institutes of Health (NIH) RePORT website was used to identify funding history. RESULTS: Of the 319 surgeons identified, complete rank information was obtained for 308. The majority of faculty were men (70%) and only 11% of full professors were women. The median h-index values were 7, 17, and 39 for assistant, associate, and full professors, respectively. While 50% of full professors had a history of NIH funding, only 26% had RO1s and 20% had current NIH funding. Using multivariate analysis, years in practice, h-index, and a history of NIH funding were associated with academic rank (P < .05). CONCLUSION: Objective benchmarks, such as the median h-index and NIH funding, provide additional insights for both junior faculty and leadership into the productivity needed to attain promotion to the next academic rank for surgical oncologists.