Reexamining Time From Breast Cancer Diagnosis to Primary Breast Surgery.

Importance: Although longer times from breast cancer diagnosis to primary surgery have been associated with worse survival outcomes, the specific time point after which it is disadvantageous to have surgery is unknown. Identifying an acceptable time to surgery would help inform patients, clinicians, and the health care system. Objective: To examine the association between time from breast cancer diagnosis to surgery (in weeks) and overall survival and to describe factors associated with surgical delay. The hypothesis that there is an association between time to surgery and overall survival was tested. Design, Setting, and Participants: This was a case series study that used National Cancer Database (NCDB) data from female individuals diagnosed with breast cancer from 2010 to 2014 (with 5-year follow-up to 2019). The NCDB uses hospital registry data from greater than 1500 Commission on Cancer-accredited facilities, accounting for 70% of all cancers diagnosed in the US. Included participants were females 18 years or older with stage I to III ductal or lobular breast cancer who underwent surgery as the first course of treatment. Patients with prior breast cancer, missing receptor information, neoadjuvant or experimental therapy, or who were diagnosed with breast cancer on the date of their primary surgery were excluded. Multivariable Cox regression was used to evaluate factors associated with overall survival. Patients were censored at death or last follow-up. Covariates included age and tumor characteristics. Multinomial regression was performed to identify factors associated with longer time to surgery, using surgery 30 days or less from diagnosis as the reference group. Data were analyzed from March 15 to July 7, 2022. Exposures: Time to receipt of primary breast surgery. Measures: The primary outcome measure was overall survival. Results: The final cohort included 373 334 patients (median [IQR] age, 61 [51-70] years). On multivariable Cox regression analysis, time to surgery 9 weeks (57-63 days) or later after diagnosis was associated with worse overall survival (hazard ratio, 1.15; 95% CI, 1.08-1.23; P < .001) compared with surgery between 0 to 4 weeks (1-28 days). By multinomial regression, factors associated with longer times to surgery (using surgery 1-30 days from diagnosis as a reference) included the following: (1) younger age, eg, the adjusted odds ratio (OR) for patients 45 years or younger undergoing surgery 31 to 60 days from diagnosis was 1.32 (95% CI, 1.28-1.38); 61 to 74 days, 1.64 (95% CI, 1.52-1.78); and greater than 74 days, 1.58 (95% CI, 1.46-1.71); (2) uninsured or Medicaid status, eg, the adjusted OR for patients with Medicaid undergoing surgery 31 to 60 days from diagnosis was 1.35 (95% CI, 1.30-1.39); 61 to 74 days, 2.13 (95% CI, 2.01-2.26); and greater than 74 days, 3.42 (95% CI, 3.25-3.61); and (3) lower neighborhood household income, eg, the adjusted OR for patients with household income less than $38,000 undergoing surgery 31 to 60 days from diagnosis was 1.35 (95% CI, 1.02-1.07); 61 to 74 days, 1.21 (95% CI, 1.15-1.27); and greater than 74 days, 1.53 (95% CI, 1.46-1.61). Conclusions and Relevance: Findings of this case series study suggest the use of 8 weeks or less as a quality metric for time to surgery. Time to surgery of greater than 8 weeks may partly be associated with disadvantageous social determinants of health.

What Drives High Costs of Cytoreductive Surgery and HIPEC: Patient, Provider or Tumor?

INTRODUCTION: Cytoreductive surgery with hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (CRS/HIPEC) is utilized for peritoneal malignancies and is associated with significant resource use. To address potentially modifiable factors contributing to excessive cost, we sought to determine predictors of high cost of care for patients undergoing CRS/HIPEC. METHODS: An institutional CRS/HIPEC database was queried for adult patients from 2014 to 2018. Cost was defined as cost for the index hospitalization, and high-cost cases were defined as > 75th percentile for cost. Bivariate analyses for cost were performed, and all significant tumor, patient, and surgeon-specific variables were entered in a linear regression for cost. A separate linear regression was performed for length of stay (LOS). RESULTS: In total, 59 patients underwent 61 CRS/HIPEC procedures. The median direct variable cost was $20,509 (16,395-25,240). Median length of stay (LOS) was 8 (7-11.5) days and ICU stay was 1 (1-1.5) day. LOS, length of ICU stay and operative time were predictive of cost. Factors associated with increased LOS were Clavien-Dindo grade II complications and ostomy creation. Patient-related factors, including age and BMI, tumor-related factors, such as PCI and CCR, and surgeon were not predictive of cost nor LOS. DISCUSSION: Our results, the first to identify predictors of high cost of CRS/HIPEC-related care in the US, reveal cost was largely related to length and intensity of care. In turn, these drivers were influenced by complications and operative factors. Future work will focus on identifying an appropriate ERAS protocol following CRS/HIPEC and selection of those patients that may avoid routine ICU admission.

Development and Assessment of the Wisconsin Surgical Coaching Rubric.

Importance: Surgical coaching continues to gain momentum as an innovative method for continuous professional development. A tool to measure the performance of a surgical coach is needed to provide formative feedback to coaches for continued skill development and to assess the fidelity of a coaching intervention for future research and dissemination. Objective: To evaluate the validity of the Wisconsin Surgical Coaching Rubric (WiSCoR), a novel tool to assess the performance of a peer surgical coach. Design, Setting, and Participants: Surgical coaching sessions from November 2014 through February 2018 conducted by 2 statewide peer surgical coaching programs were audio recorded and transcribed. Twelve raters used WiSCoR to rate the performance of the surgical coach for each session. The study included peer surgical coaches in the Wisconsin Surgical Coaching Program (n = 8) and the Michigan Bariatric Surgery Collaborative coaching program (n = 15). The data were analyzed in 2019. Interventions or Exposures: Use of WiSCoR to rate peer surgical coaching sessions. Main Outcomes and Measures: There were 282 WiSCoR ratings from the 106 coaching sessions included in the study. WiSCoR was evaluated using a framework, including inter-rater reliability assessed with Gwet weighted agreement coefficent. Descriptive statistics of WiSCoR were calculated. Results: Eight coaches (35%) and 11 coachees (29%) were from the Wisconsin Surgical Program and 15 coaches (65%) and 27 coachees (71%) were from the Michigan Bariatric Surgery Collaborative. The validity of WiSCoR is supported by high interrater reliability (Gwet weighted agreement coefficient, 0.87) as well as a weakly positive correlation of WiSCoR to coachee ratings of coaches (r = 0.22; P = .04), rigorous content development, consistent rater training, and the association of WiSCoR with coach and coaching program development. The mean (SD) overall coach performance rating using WiSCoR was 3.23 (0.82; range, 1-5). Conclusions and Relevance: WiSCoR is a reliable measure that can assess the performance of a surgical coach, inform fidelity to coaching principles, and provide formative feedback to surgical coaches. While coachee ratings may reflect coachee satisfaction, they are not able to determine the quality of a coach.

Optimal Surveillance Frequency After CRS/HIPEC for Appendiceal and Colorectal Neoplasms: A Multi-institutional Analysis of the US HIPEC Collaborative.

BACKGROUND: No guidelines exist for surveillance following cytoreductive surgery with hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (CRS/HIPEC) for appendiceal and colorectal cancer. The primary objective was to define the optimal surveillance frequency after CRS/HIPEC. METHODS: The U.S. HIPEC Collaborative database (2000-2017) was reviewed for patients who underwent a CCR0/1 CRS/HIPEC for appendiceal or colorectal cancer. Radiologic surveillance frequency was divided into two categories: low-frequency surveillance (LFS) at q6-12mos or high-frequency surveillance (HFS) at q2-4mos. Primary outcome was overall survival (OS). RESULTS: Among 975 patients, the median age was 55 year, 41% were male: 31% had non-invasive appendiceal (n = 301), 45% invasive appendiceal (n = 435), and 24% colorectal cancer (CRC; n = 239). With a median follow-up time of 25 mos, the median time to recurrence was 12 mos. Despite less surveillance, LFS patients had no decrease in median OS (non-invasive appendiceal: 106 vs. 65 mos, p < 0.01; invasive appendiceal: 120 vs. 73 mos, p = 0.02; colorectal cancer [CRC]: 35 vs. 30 mos, p = 0.8). LFS patients had lower median PCI scores compared with HFS (non-invasive appendiceal: 10 vs. 19; invasive appendiceal: 10 vs. 14; CRC: 8 vs. 11; all p < 0.01). However, on multivariable analysis, accounting for PCI score, LFS was still not associated with decreased OS for any histologic type (non-invasive appendiceal: hazard ratio [HR]: 0.28, p = 0.1; invasive appendiceal: HR: 0.73, p = 0.42; CRC: HR: 1.14, p = 0.59). When estimating annual incident cases of CRS/HIPEC at 375 for non-invasive appendiceal, 375 invasive appendiceal and 4410 colorectal, LFS compared with HFS for the initial two post-operative years would potentially save $13-19 M/year to the U.S. healthcare system. CONCLUSIONS: Low-frequency surveillance after CRS/HIPEC for appendiceal or colorectal cancer is not associated with decreased survival, and when considering decreased costs, may optimize resource utilization.

Breast Cancer Found Incidentally After Reduction Mammaplasty in Young Insured Women.

BACKGROUND: Reduction mammaplasty is a common operation performed for healthy women. The estimated incidence of breast cancer diagnosed at the time of reduction mammaplasty varies from 0.06 to 4.5%, and information on the care of these patients is limited. This study aimed to determine the incidence of breast cancer identified incidentally during reduction mammaplasty and to characterize preoperative imaging. METHODS: Women 18 years of age or older who underwent reduction mammaplasty from 2013 to 2015 were identified from the Truven Health MarketScan® Research Databases. Patients with prior breast cancer were excluded. Descriptive statistics were calculated for patient characteristics, incidental breast cancer, preoperative breast imaging, and postoperative treatment. RESULTS: Reduction mammaplasty was performed for 18,969 women with a mean age of 42.5 years. Of these patients, 186 (0.98%) were incidentally found to have breast cancer, with 134 (0.71%) having invasive breast cancer and 52 (0.27%) having carcinoma in situ. The patients with incidentally found cancer were older than the patients without cancer (50.8 vs. 42.5 years; p < 0.001). Overall, 58.2% of the patients had undergone mammography before reduction mammoplasty. The rates were higher (> 80%) for the patients older than 40 years. Preoperative mammography was performed for 76.3% of those with a diagnosis of breast cancer at time of reduction mammoplasty. CONCLUSIONS: Breast cancer diagnosed incidentally at the time of reduction mammaplasty is uncommon and often radiographically occult. The majority of women older than 50 years appropriately received preoperative mammography. These data can be used to manage patient expectations about the potential for the incidental diagnosis of breast cancer at reduction mammaplasty, even with a negative preoperative mammography.