Opioid prescribing exceeds consumption following common surgical oncology procedures.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Surgical oncology patients are vulnerable to persistent opioid use. As such, we aim to compare opioid prescribing to opioid consumption for common surgical oncology procedures. METHODS: We prospectively identified patients undergoing common surgical oncology procedures at a single academic institution (August 2017-March 2018). Patients were contacted by telephone within 6 months of surgery and asked to report their opioid consumption and describe their discharge instructions and opioid handling practices. RESULTS: Of the 439 patients who were approached via telephone, 270 completed at least one survey portion. The median quantity of opioid prescribed was significantly larger than consumed following breast biopsy (5 vs. 2 tablets of 5 mg oxycodone, p < .001), lumpectomy (10 vs. 2 tablets of 5 mg oxycodone, p < .001), and mastectomy or wide local excision (20 tablets vs. 2 tablets of 5 mg oxycodone, p < .001). The majority of patients reported receiving education on taking opioids, but only 27% received instructions on proper disposal; 82% of prescriptions filled resulted in unused opioids, and only 11% of these patients safely disposed of them. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates that opioid prescribing exceeds consumption following common surgical oncology procedures, indicating the potential for reductions in prescribing.

Recommendations for head and neck surgical oncology practice in a setting of acute severe resource constraint during the COVID-19 pandemic: an international consensus.

The speed and scale of the global COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in unprecedented pressures on health services worldwide, requiring new methods of service delivery during the health crisis. In the setting of severe resource constraint and high risk of infection to patients and clinicians, there is an urgent need to identify consensus statements on head and neck surgical oncology practice. We completed a modified Delphi consensus process of three rounds with 40 international experts in head and neck cancer surgical, radiation, and medical oncology, representing 35 international professional societies and national clinical trial groups. Endorsed by 39 societies and professional bodies, these consensus practice recommendations aim to decrease inconsistency of practice, reduce uncertainty in care, and provide reassurance for clinicians worldwide for head and neck surgical oncology in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic and in the setting of acute severe resource constraint and high risk of infection to patients and staff.

Development of a surgical oncology training curriculum for accreditation.

In 2011, the American Board of Surgery announced a new specialty board certification for Complex General Surgical Oncology. The development of a 2-year fellowship training curriculum was based on the core values of multidisciplinary care, surgical management of oncologic disease, education in basic research and clinical trial design, community outreach, patient counseling, and leadership in oncology. This article highlights the elements necessary for developing a fellowship training program in the context of these core values.

Intraoperative Margin Assessment in Head and Neck Cancer: A Case of Misuse and Abuse?

Surgical removal with negative margins is the preferred management of oral squamous cell carcinomas. This review summarizes statements by professional organizations and data supporting the specimen-driven approach to margin assessment. Practical aspects of the intraoperative margin assessment, as guided by gross examination, are presented. The most cost- and time-efficient method of intraoperative margin assessment depends on desired margin clearance and likelihood of other adverse histologic factors, such as extranodal extension, perineural invasion, which are likelier in advanced carcinomas. Intraoperative surgeon-pathologist communication can be improved by reporting to surgical team gross distances to all or selected closest margins, before choosing margins for microscopic frozen examination. Case specific mitigation strategies to minimize the negative impact of tumor-bed driven margin assessment or of suboptimal margin revision are proposed. Based on size, shape, histology, size of carcinoma at the margin, and orientation of the additional tissue, margin revision may be judged as adequate (conversion of a positive margin into a negative one), inadequate (positive margin remains positive), or indeterminate. The significance of anatomic subsite based labeling, radial margin sampling from the main resection specimen, and the relationship between the distance to closest margin and local control are highlighted. The modern definition of safe margin would account for other parameters, such as perineural invasion. An updated approach to resolution of frozen versus permanent sampling issues is outlined. Future studies are needed to design and validate risk models that would help to determine for individual patient what represents a safe margin and how to judge the quality of margin revision.

Theoretical and practical knowledge curriculum for European Breast Surgeons.

The Breast Surgery theoretical and practical knowledge curriculum comprehensively describes the knowledge and skills expected of a fully trained breast surgeon practicing in the European Union and European Economic Area (EEA). It forms part of a range of factors that contribute to the delivery of high quality cancer care. It has been developed by a panel of experts from across Europe and has been validated by professional breast surgery societies in Europe. The curriculum maps closely to the syllabus of the Union of European Medical Specialists (UEMS) Breast Surgery Exam, the UK FRCS (breast specialist interest) curriculum and other professional standards across Europe and globally (USA Society of Surgical Oncology, SSO). It is envisioned that this will serve as the basis for breast surgery training, examination and accreditation across Europe to harmonise and raise standards as breast surgery develops as a separate discipline from its parent specialties (general surgery, gynaecology, surgical oncology and plastic surgery). The curriculum is not static but will be revised and updated by the curriculum development group of the European Breast Surgical Oncology Certification group (BRESO) every 2 years.

Complex General Surgical Oncology Fellowship Applicants: Trends over Time and the Impact of Board Certification Eligibility.

BACKGROUND: Complex general surgical oncology (CGSO) fellowships recently obtained Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) accreditation and board certification eligibility. We aimed to characterize the applicant pool and identify factors predictive of matching into our program. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective review of CGSO fellowship applications to a major cancer center from 2008 to 2018. Data were analyzed for trends over time, including a comparison of pre- versus post-American Board of Surgery (ABS) certification eligibility. RESULTS: A total of 846 applications were reviewed. Most applicants (86.2%) trained in a US residency program; 58.4% performed ≥ 1 research year during residency; 29.6% had a dual degree. Fewer applicants (34.5%) were female, a trend which did not change over time. Post-ABS, applicants were more likely to complete ≥ 1 year between residency and fellowship (20.9% versus 13.2%, p = 0.003), to be in practice at the time of application (12.2% versus 6.6%, p = 0.005), and to reapply (5.5% versus 1.0%, p < 0.001). Post-ABS applicants listed more peer-reviewed publications (8 [interquartile range (IQR) 4, 15] versus 5 [IQR 2, 10]; p < 0.001). On multivariable analysis, factors associated with matching into our program included: US allopathic medical school graduation [odds ratio (OR) 4.6, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.8-11.7], Alpha Omega Alpha (AOA) Honor Medical Society distinction (OR 2.7, 95% CI 1.6-4.7), dual degree (OR 2.0, 95% CI 1.1-3.4), and performance of a clinical/research rotation at our institution (OR 4.9, 95% CI 2.2-10.7). CONCLUSIONS: After establishment of CGSO board certification eligibility, applicants were more likely to apply while in practice and to reapply. A number of factors, including having a dual degree and rotating at our institution, were associated with matriculation.

A Survey of the Complex General Surgical Oncology Fellowship Programs Regarding Applicant Selection and Rank.

BACKGROUND: There is significant demand for training in Complex General Surgical Oncology (CGSO) fellowships. Previous work has explored objective quantitative metrics of applicants that matriculated to CGSO fellowships; however, ambiguity remains concerning academic benchmarks and qualitative factors that impact matriculation. STUDY DESIGN: A web-based survey was sent to each ACGME/SSO-approved CGSO fellowship training program. The survey was comprised of 24 questions in various forms, including dichotomous, ranked, and five-point Likert scale questions. RESULTS: Twenty-nine of 30 program directors (97%) submitted complete survey responses, representing 64 of the 65 CGSO fellowship positions (99%) currently offered. Programs received a mean of 73 applications per cycle (range 50-125) and granted a mean of 26 interviews (range 2-45). Seventy-two percent of programs had an established benchmark for ABSITE score percentile before offering a candidate an interview, with 62% of those programs setting that benchmark above the 50th percentile. The majority of programs also had established benchmarks for quantity of first author publications (mean: 2.3) and all publications of any authorship (mean: 4.4). An applicant's interview was ranked as the most important factor in determining inclusion on the program's rank list. The ability to work as part of a team, interpersonal interaction/communication abilities, and operative skills were rated as most important applicant characteristics, whereas an applicant's personal statement was ranked as least important. CONCLUSIONS: After established academic benchmarks have been met, a multitude of factors influences ranking of applicants to the CGSO fellowship, most of which are assessed at the interview.

Towards an evidence-informed value scale for surgical and radiation oncology: a multi-stakeholder perspective.

Surgery and radiotherapy, two locoregional cancer treatments, are essential to help improve cancer outcomes, control, and palliation. The continued evolution in treatment processes, techniques, and technologies-often at substantially increased costs-demands for direction on outcomes that are most valued by patients, and the evidence that is required before clinical adoption of these practices. Three recently introduced frameworks-the European Society for Medical Oncology Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale, the American Society of Clinical Oncology Value Framework, and the National Comprehensive Cancer Network Blocks-which all help define the value of oncology treatments, were appraised with a focus on their methods and definition of patient benefit. In this Review, we investigate the applicability of these frameworks to surgical and radiotherapy innovations. Findings show that these frameworks are not immediately transferable to locoregional cancer treatments. Moreover, the lack of emphasis on patient perspective and the reliance on traditional, trial-based endpoints such as survival, disease-free survival, and safety, calls for a new framework that includes real-world evidence with focus on the whole spectrum of patient-centred endpoints. Such an evidence-informed value scale would safeguard against the proliferation of low-value innovation while simultaneously increasing access to treatments that show significant improvements in the outcomes of cancer care.

Ongoing formative assessment in the training of post graduate students.

INTRODUCTION: There is growing evidence that formative assessment is valuable tool in enhancing learning. Integrating formative assessment into post graduate students can be challenging. AIM: Authors aimed in this study to describe an ongoing formative assessment activity in post graduates. We reported resident's performance and satisfaction. METHODS: Authors performed an exploratory study over a 3-year period. Twenty five oncology residents participated. The first phase was test preparation by senior oncologists, according to residency curricula then taking the test by a small group of residents with an immediate feedback. The third phase was distribution of a survey each 6 months evaluating resident's perception of the testing. RESULTS: Twenty two tests were taken by 17 medical oncology, 2 surgical oncology and 4 radiation therapy residents.  At the first test, median scores was 51/100 [30%-72%] with a mean of 53/100. Individual scores of each resident improved with time, becoming 68/100 (t(16)=3.172, p<0.02) with a mean of 64/100 and decrease between student's scores. All the students rated the correction session with a 5. The majority reported that the test reached their expectations (73% rated4-5), and considered it, as having an impact on their daily practice (77% rated4-5). Residents also considered the test as highly difficult (80% rated4-5). CONCLUSION: Ongoing formative assessment showed improvement in overall knowledge of residents with high level of satisfaction.

Evaluating the Effect of Margin Consensus Guideline Publication on Operative Patterns and Financial Impact of Breast Cancer Operation.

BACKGROUND: This study sought to evaluate re-excision rates, patient satisfaction with their breasts, and healthcare costs before and after publication of 2014 Society of Surgical Oncology/American Society of Radiation Oncology consensus guideline on margins for breast conserving operation with whole-breast irradiation for stage I and II breast cancer at an academic institution. STUDY DESIGN: Patients with stage I and II invasive carcinomas who underwent partial mastectomy were divided into 2 groups based on whether they were treated before (PRE) or after (POST) guideline publication in March 2014. Groups were compared with respect to re-excision rates, conversion to mastectomy, specimen volumes, mean cost per patient of surgical care, and prospectively collected patient post-procedure quality of life. RESULTS: A total of 237 patients who underwent partial mastectomy were examined (n = 126 in the PRE group and n = 111 in the POST group). Patients in the POST group were less likely to require re-excision (9% POST vs 37% PRE; p < 0.001) and were less likely to undergo conversion to mastectomy (5% POST vs 14% PRE; p = 0.02). After consensus guideline publication, mean operative cost per patient decreased ($4,874 POST vs $5,772 PRE; p < 0.001), and patients had improved breast quality of life scores (77 out of 100 POST vs 61 out of 100 PRE; p = 0.03). On multivariable analysis, publication of the consensus statement was an independent predictor of decreased re-excision rates (odds ratio 0.17; 95% CI 0.08 to 0.38; p < 0.001) and operative cost per patient (odds ratio 0.14; 95% CI 0.78 to 0.30; p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Widespread implementation of the consensus guideline on margins for breast conserving operation will likely lead to the intended improvements in operative and financial outcomes, as well as patient satisfaction with breast conserving operation.

Head and Neck Surgical Oncology Choosing Wisely Campaign: imaging for patients with hoarseness, fine needle aspiration for neck mass, and ultrasound for odynophagia.

Choosing Wisely Canada, is a campaign designed to raise awareness regarding inappropriate or unnecessary tests and treatments. The Canadian Society of Otolaryngology - Head & Neck Surgery and the Canadian Association of Head and Neck Surgical Oncologists developed a Choosing Wisely Canada list to help promote high quality care for patients presenting with disorders of the head and neck: (1) Don't order imaging - computer tomography (CT) or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) - as the initial investigation for patients presenting with a chief complaint of hoarseness, (2) Don't perform an open biopsy or excision of a neck mass without having first considered a fine needle aspiration (FNA) biopsy and, (3) Don't order neck ultrasound to investigate odynophagia (discomfort or pain with swallowing) or globus sensation.

Improving Care With a Portfolio of Physician-Led Cancer Quality Measures at an Academic Center.

PURPOSE: Development and implementation of robust reporting processes to systematically provide quality data to care teams in a timely manner is challenging. National cancer quality measures are useful, but the manual data collection required is resource intensive, and reporting is delayed. We designed a largely automated measurement system with our multidisciplinary cancer care programs (CCPs) to identify, measure, and improve quality metrics that were meaningful to the care teams and their patients. METHODS: Each CCP physician leader collaborated with the cancer quality team to identify metrics, abiding by established guiding principles. Financial incentive was provided to the CCPs if performance at the end of the study period met predetermined targets. Reports were developed and provided to the CCP physician leaders on a monthly or quarterly basis, for dissemination to their CCP teams. RESULTS: A total of 15 distinct quality measures were collected in depth for the first time at this cancer center. Metrics spanned the patient care continuum, from diagnosis through end of life or survivorship care. All metrics improved over the study period, met their targets, and earned a financial incentive for their CCP. CONCLUSION: Our quality program had three essential elements that led to its success: (1) engaging physicians in choosing the quality measures and prespecifying goals, (2) using automated extraction methods for rapid and timely feedback on improvement and progress toward achieving goals, and (3) offering a financial team-based incentive if prespecified goals were met.

Organisation and provision of head and neck cancer surgical services in the United Kingdom: United Kingdom National Multidisciplinary Guidelines.

This is the official guideline endorsed by the surgical specialty associations involved in the care of head and neck cancer patients in the UK. This paper summarises the current state of play in the organisation and provision of head and neck cancer surgical services in the UK.

Education of trainees, training and fellowships for head and neck oncologic and surgical training in the UK: United Kingdom National Multidisciplinary Guidelines.

Since the previous edition of these guidelines, significant changes have taken place in the training and assessment of surgeons and oncologists who treat patients with head and neck cancer. For those intending to become head and neck surgeons, a fellowship in head and neck surgery is virtually mandatory. This paper summarises the current career structure to specialise in head and neck oncology and surgery in the UK. Recommendation • Trainees applying for head and neck surgical oncology consultant posts should have completed additional training in the subspecialty.

The European Organization for Research and Treatment for Cancer (EORTC) strategy for quality assurance in surgical clinical research: Assessment of the past and moving towards the future.

AIMS: Quality assurance (QA) in a surgical trial must be planned and implemented from study development to completion. Elements of quality must be consistently described in a protocols, case report forms (CRFs) and reported in publications. The purpose of this review was to evaluate the most common surgical parameters and how consistently they were described in EORTC study documents where surgery was included. This was the preliminary step in mapping out the challenges of developing a surgical QA strategy in EORTC. METHODS: A systematic review of EORTC surgical protocols from 1980 to 2013 was performed. Two independent reviewers selected and reviewed the protocols. Data extraction was done using a questionnaire developed by EORTC QA committee. The results were compared across the time period. RESULTS: The most common quality parameters described in protocols were surgical technique, definition of resectability, surgical margins and methods of assessing adverse events using the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Event (CTCAE). However, these were not consistently reported in publications. A general improvement in the method of protocol development was observed since year 2000 after standardization measures by EORTC. A new surgical chapter template has been proposed. CONCLUSION: There is a need to consistently define and report surgical parameters from protocol development to publication as a first step to QA. A standard surgical chapter in the EORTC protocol template can help address this need. A framework to consistently implement QA for future surgical trials is needed and the rationale for this is described in this review.