Feeding Jejunostomy Tube in Patients Undergoing Esophagectomy: Utilization and Outcomes in a Nationwide Cohort.

BACKGROUND: Feeding jejunostomy (JT) tubes are often utilized as an adjunct to optimize nutrition for successful esophagectomy; however, their utility has come into question. The aim of this study was to evaluate utilization and outcomes associated with JTs in a nationwide cohort of patients undergoing esophagectomy. METHODS: The NSQIP database was queried for patients who underwent elective esophagectomy. JT utilization was assessed between 2010 and 2019. Post-operative outcomes were compared between those with and without a JT on patients with esophagectomy-specific outcomes (2016-2019), with results validated using a propensity score-matched (PSM) analysis based on key clinicopathologic factors, including tumor stage. RESULTS: Of the 10,117 patients who underwent elective esophagectomy over the past decade, 53.0% had a JT placed concurrently and 47.0% did not. Utilization of JTs decreased over time, accounting for 60.0% of cases in 2010 compared to 41.7% in 2019 (m = - 2.14 95%CI: [- 1.49]-[- 2.80], p < 0.01). Patients who underwent JT had more composite wound complications (17.0% vs. 14.1%, p = 0.02) and a higher rate of all-cause morbidity (40.4% vs. 35.5%, p = 0.01). Following PSM, 1007 pairs were identified. Analysis of perioperative outcomes demonstrated a higher rate of superficial skin infections (6.1% vs. 3.5%, p = 0.01) in the JT group. However, length of stay, reoperation, readmission, anastomotic leak, composite wound complications, all-cause morbidity, and mortality rates were similar between groups. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients undergoing elective esophagectomy, feeding jejunostomy tubes were utilized less frequently over the past decade. Similar perioperative outcomes among matched patients support the safety of esophagectomy without an adjunct feeding jejunostomy tube.

Evaluating the Impact of ESPAC-1 on Shifting the Paradigm of Pancreatic Cancer Treatment.

BACKGROUND: In 2004, the European Study Group for Pancreatic Cancer (ESPAC)-1 long-term data concluded that adjuvant chemotherapy provided a survival benefit for patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC), whereas adjuvant chemoradiation was associated with worse overall survival. In this study, we investigated how long it took for US practice patterns to change following this trial. METHODS: The National Cancer Database was used to identify patients with stage I-III PDAC who underwent R0 or R1 resection followed by adjuvant chemotherapy or chemoradiation between 1998 and 2015. A multivariate analysis was performed to determine predictors of receiving adjuvant chemoradiation in the post-ESPAC-1 era. RESULTS: Between 1998 and 2015, adjuvant chemotherapy use increased from 2.9% to 51.6%, whereas adjuvant chemoradiation decreased from 49.5% to 22.9%. In 2010, adjuvant chemotherapy utilization surpassed that of chemoradiation. For patients diagnosed in the post-ESPAC-1 era, adjuvant chemotherapy (n = 7733) and chemoradiation (n = 6969) groups were compared. Patients who underwent adjuvant chemoradiation were younger, had private insurance, underwent surgery at nonacademic centers, and had more pathologically advanced cancers (all P < 0.01). After 2010, R1 resection was the strongest independent predictor of adjuvant chemoradiation use by multivariate analysis (OR 2.05, CI 1.8-2.3, P < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Adjuvant chemotherapy use exceeded that of adjuvant chemoradiation 6 y after the final publication of ESPAC-1 in 2004, highlighting the challenges of disseminating and adopting clinical data. After 2010, R1 disease was the most significant predictor of receiving adjuvant chemoradiation. Prospective studies are underway to definitively address the role of adjuvant chemoradiation in PDAC.

Small Bowel Adenocarcinomas: Impact of Location on Survival.

BACKGROUND: Proximal (duodenal) small bowel adenocarcinomas have a worse prognosis than distal (jejuno-ileal) tumors, but differences in patient, tumor, and treatment factors between locations remain unclear. METHODS: Patients in the National Cancer Database with surgically resected pathologic stage I-IV small bowel adenocarcinomas between 2004 and 2015 were analyzed. Clinical stage IV patients were excluded. RESULTS: Proximal tumors (n = 3767) were more likely to be higher grade (OR 1.52, CI 1.22-1.85 for moderately; OR 1.83, CI 1.49-2.33 for poorly differentiated, P < 0.01 for both) and have positive lymph nodes (OR 2.04, CI 1.30-3.23, P < 0.01), while distal tumors (n = 3252) were likely to be larger (OR 1.31, CI 1.07-1.60 for size > 5 cm, P < 0.01). Proximal tumors were associated with worse overall survival (OS) and stage-specific survival compared with distal tumors (all P < 0.01). Cox regression analysis of the entire cohort showed worse survival with community versus academic cancer programs, higher comorbidity scores, pathologic stage IV, poorly differentiated histology, positive nodal or margin status, and proximal location, while female gender, larger tumor size, and chemotherapy predicted better survival. On separate Cox regression analyses of each location, neoadjuvant chemotherapy was associated with better OS in the proximal cohort (HR 0.70, CI 0.55-0.88, P < 0.01), while adjuvant chemotherapy was associated with better OS for both proximal (HR 0.49, CI 0.42-0.57, P < 0.01) and distal tumors (HR 0.68, CI 0.57-0.81, P < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Proximal small bowel adenocarcinomas are associated with worse overall and stage-specific survival. This may be due to tumor biologic differences as proximal tumors were more likely to have higher grade. Future studies should further investigate differences between proximal and distal tumors to guide targeted treatment algorithms.

Clinical Implications of Donor Warm and Cold Ischemia Time in Donor After Circulatory Death Liver Transplantation.

The use of donation after circulatory death (DCD) liver allografts has been constrained by limitations in the duration of donor warm ischemia time (DWIT), donor agonal time (DAT), and cold ischemia time (CIT). The purpose of this study is to assess the impact of longer DWIT, DAT, and CIT on graft survival and other outcomes in DCD liver transplants. The Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients was queried for adult liver transplants from DCD donors between 2009 and 2015. Donor, recipient, and center variables were included in the analysis. During the study period, 2107 patients underwent liver transplant with DCD allografts. In most patients, DWIT and DAT were <30 minutes. DWIT was <30 minutes in 1804 donors, between 30 and 40 minutes in 248, and >40 minutes in 37. There was no difference in graft survival, duration of posttransplant hospital length of stay, and readmission rate between DCD liver transplants from donors with DWIT <30 minutes and DWIT between 30 and 40 minutes. Similar outcomes were noted for DAT. In the multivariate analysis, DAT and DWIT were not associated with graft loss. The predictors associated with graft loss were donor age, donor sharing, CIT, recipient admission to the intensive care unit, recipient ventilator dependence, Model for End-Stage Liver Disease score, and low-volume transplant centers. Any CIT cutoff >4 hours was associated with increased risk for graft loss. Longer CIT was also associated with a longer posttransplant hospital stay, higher rate of primary nonfunction, and hyperbilirubinemia. In conclusion, slightly longer DAT and DWIT (up to 40 minutes) were not associated with graft loss, longer posttransplant hospitalization, or hospital readmissions, whereas longer CIT was associated with worse outcomes after DCD liver transplants.

Incidence and Long-term Outcomes of Patients Requiring Early Reoperation After HIPEC.

BACKGROUND: Cytoreductive surgery with hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) remains a formidable operation associated with considerable morbidity. It is unclear how often these patients require reoperation for postoperative complications and if the need for reoperations leads to worse long-term outcomes. METHODS: The Peritoneal Surface Malignancy Database at a single center was retrospectively queried. Out of 149 entries, 141 HIPECs performed between 2012 and 2018 met inclusion criteria. Patients were categorized based on early reoperation (<60 d after HIPEC), and demographic and tumor factors were compared using univariate analyses. Recurrence was calculated for patients with complete cytoreduction and overall survival analyzed using the Kaplan-Meier method. RESULTS: There were 15 reoperations after 141 HIPECs (10.6%). Median duration between HIPEC and reoperation was 18 d. Indications for reoperation included intra-abdominal infection (n = 5), bowel obstruction (n = 4), wound infection (n = 3), bleeding (n = 2), and evisceration (n = 1). There were no identified patient- or tumor-related risk factors for reoperation. Reoperations were associated with longer hospital length of stay (19 versus 9 d, P = 0.005) and 30-d readmissions (46.7% versus 12.8%, P = 0.003). There was no significant difference in 3-year recurrence-free survival, but there was a significant association between reoperation and 3-year overall survival (38.0% versus 71.9%, P = 0.03). CONCLUSIONS: Complications requiring reoperation after HIPEC lead to increased short-term morbidity, longer hospital length of stay, and most importantly, reduced overall survival. Further studies investigating interventions to decrease complications and reduce reoperation rates are needed to improve outcomes after HIPEC.

The Impact of Tumor Location on Resection and Survival for Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Differences in clinical staging and survival among pancreatic head, body, and tail cancers are not well defined. We aim to identify the prognostic relevance of primary tumor location in patients undergoing treatment for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC). MATERIALS AND METHODS: The National Cancer Database was used to identify patients with PDAC from 1998 to 2011 (n = 175,556). Patients were categorized by primary tumor site into head (67.5%, n = 118,343), body (15.5%, n = 27,218), and tail (17.0%, n = 29,885) groups. Univariate and Cox regression analyses were used to determine covariates associated with overall survival (OS). RESULTS: Patients with head PDAC presented with earlier stage disease (39.2% Stage I/II versus 19.7% versus 16.0%, P < 0.001) and underwent resection more often (27.9% versus 10.7% versus 17.0%, P < 0.001) than those with body or tail tumors. Of surgically resected PDAC, those localized to the head had advanced pathologic stage (84.8% stage II/III versus 66.6% versus 65.6%, P < 0.001), higher nodal positivity (64.9% versus 45.8% versus 45%, P < 0.001), and worse tumor grade (35.9% poorly differentiated versus 29.5% versus 27.8%, P < 0.001). Despite increased utilization of adjuvant therapies (54.4% versus 45.6% versus 42.0%, P < 0.001), patients with head PDAC had inferior OS compared with those with body and tail tumors (P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: When examining patients with PDAC undergoing resection, tumor localization to the head is associated with improved resectability because they present earlier. Of resected PDACs, however, those localized to the head have worse OS compared with body and tail tumors. This discrepancy may represent a combination of lead time and selection biases and biologic differences between tumor sites.

Perioperative blood transfusions following hepatic lobectomy: A national analysis of academic medical centers in the modern era.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of the study was to characterize the prevalence and impact of perioperative blood use for patients undergoing hepatic lobectomy at academic medical centers. METHODS: The University HealthSystem Consortium (UHC) database was queried for hepatic lobectomies performed between 2011 and 2014 (n = 6476). Patients were grouped according to transfusion requirements into high (>5 units, 7%), medium (2-5 units, 6%), low (1 unit, 8%), and none (0 units, 79%) during hospital stay for comparison of outcomes. RESULTS: Over 20% of patients undergoing hepatic lobectomy received blood perioperatively, of which 35% required more than 5 units. Patients with high transfusion requirements had increased severity of illness (p < 0.01). High transfusion requirements correlated with increased readmission rates (23.4% vs. 19.2% vs. 16.6% vs. 13.5%), total direct costs ($31,982 vs. $20,859 vs. $19,457 vs. $16,934), length of stay (9 days vs. 8 vs. 7 vs. 6), and in-hospital mortality (10.8% vs. 2.0% vs. 0.9% vs. 2.0%) compared to medium, low, and no transfusion amounts (all p < 0.01). Neither center nor surgeon volume were associated with transfusion use. CONCLUSION: High transfusion requirements after hepatic lobectomy in the United States are associated with worse perioperative quality measures, but may not be influenced by center or surgeon volume.

Does Surgical Margin Impact Recurrence in Noninvasive Intraductal Papillary Mucinous Neoplasms?: A Multi-institutional Study.

OBJECTIVE: The relevance of margin positivity on recurrence after resection of intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasms (IPMNs) is poorly defined and represents one reason controversy remains regarding optimal surveillance recommendations. METHODS: Patients undergoing surgery for noninvasive IPMN at 8 academic medical centers from the Central Pancreas Consortium were analyzed. A positive margin was defined as presence of IPMN or pancreatic intraepithelial neoplasia. RESULTS: Five hundred two patients underwent surgery for IPMN; 330 (66%) did not have invasive cancer on final pathology and form the study cohort. Of these, 20% harbored high grade dysplasia. A positive margin was found in 20% of cases and was associated with multifocal disease (P = 0.02). The majority of positive margins were associated with low grade dysplasia. At a median follow-up of 36 months, 34 (10.3%) patients recurred, with 6.7% developing recurrent cystic disease and 3.6% developing invasive cancer. On multivariate analysis, margin positivity was not associated with recurrence of either IPMN or invasive cancer (P > 0.05). No association between margin status and development of recurrence at the margin was found. Only 6% of recurrences developed at the resection margin and median time to recurrence was 22 months. Of note, 18% of recurrences occurred > 5 years following surgery. CONCLUSION: Margin positivity after resection for noninvasive IPMNs is primarily due to low grade dysplasia and is not associated with developing recurrence in the remnant pancreas or at the resection margin. Long-term surveillance is required for all patients, as a significant number of recurrences developed over 5 years after the index operation.

Cost of achieving equivalent outcomes in sicker patients after liver transplant.

BACKGROUND: We aimed to characterize variability in cost after straightforward orthotopic liver transplant (OLT). METHODS: Using the University HealthSystem Consortium and Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients databases, we identified patients who underwent OLT between 2011 and 2014. Patients meeting criteria for straightforward OLT, defined as length of stay < 14 days with discharge to home, were selected (n = 5763) and grouped into tertiles (low, medium, high) according to cost of perioperative stay. RESULTS: Patients undergoing straightforward OLT were of similar demographics regardless of cost. High cost patients were more likely to require preoperative hemodialysis, had higher severity of illness, and higher model for end-stage liver disease (MELD) (p < 0.01). High cost patients required greater utilization of resources including lab tests, blood transfusions, and opioids (p < 0.01). Despite having higher burden of disease and requiring increased resource utilization, high cost OLT patients with a straightforward perioperative course were shown to have identical 2-year graft and overall survival compared to lower cost patients (p = 0.82 and p = 0.63), respectively. CONCLUSION: Providing adequate perioperative care for OLT patients with higher severity of illness and disease burden requires increased cost and resource utilization; however, doing so provides these patients with long term survival equivalent to more routine patients.

Laparoscopic subtotal cholecystectomy compared to total cholecystectomy: a matched national analysis.

BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic subtotal cholecystectomy (LSC) is considered a safe alternative to laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) if biliary anatomy is obscured by inflammation. While case series studies have observed low morbidity rates with LSC, the impact of operative conversion on patient outcomes is poorly understood. METHODS: A national analysis of all patients who underwent LC or LSC from 2009 to 2013 was performed using the University HealthSystem Consortium database. A 1:1 propensity score match was used to compare procedural outcomes accounting for clinical and demographic factors. Matched samples had <10% standardized differences of each baseline covariate. RESULTS: A total of 131,082 LC and 487 LSC were performed during the study period. Compared with LC, patients undergoing LSC were more likely to be older (56 versus 48 years), male (54.2% versus 32.3%), and have higher severity of illness scores on admission (9.2% versus 3.5% extreme severity of illness; P < 0.001 each). LSC patients had a prolonged hospital length of stay (LOS, 4 versus 3 days), greater total direct cost ($9053 versus $6398), higher readmission rates (11.9% versus 7.0%), and higher mortality rates (0.82% versus 0.28%, P < 0.05 each). After matching, the difference in total direct cost persisted ($9053 versus $7,581, P < 0.001), but there were no differences in hospital LOS, readmission rates, or overall mortality. CONCLUSIONS: LSC is an important alternative to LC for the difficult gallbladder. Conversion to LSC is associated with increased patient morbidity and resource utilization leading to perceived poor outcomes, but this is due to patient factors at initial presentation. Health care providers should consider LSC if the patient may be at risk for iatrogenic injury to the biliary tract.

The center volume-outcome effect in pancreas transplantation: a national analysis.

BACKGROUND: Although increased hospital volume has been correlated with improved outcomes in certain surgical procedures, the effect of center volume on pancreas transplantation (PT) is less understood. Our study aims to establish whether a volume-outcome effect exists for PT. METHODS: Through an established linkage between the University HealthSystem Consortium and the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients (SRTR) databases, we performed a retrospective cohort analysis of adult PT recipients between 2009 and 2012. Surgical volume was divided equally into low volume (LV), middle volume (MV), and high volume (HV) tertiles for each year that was studied. Hospital outcomes were measured through University HealthSystem Consortium, and long-term outcomes were measured through Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients. Statistical analysis was performed using regression analyses and the Kaplan-Meier method. Median follow-up period was 2 y. RESULTS: Among the 2309 PT recipients included, 815 (35.3%) were performed at LV centers, 755 (32.7%) at MV centers, and 739 (32.0%) at HV centers. Compared with MV and LV centers, organs transplanted at HV centers were more frequently donation after cardiac death (5.1% versus 2.4% versus 3.3%, P = 0.01) and from older donors (2.8% [>50 y] versus 0.8% versus 0.1%, P < 0.001). In addition, HV recipients were older (31.5% [>50 y] versus 20.9% versus 19.7%, P < 0.001) and had worse functional status (39.5% dependent versus 9.7% versus 9.9%, P < 0.001). Patient and graft survival were similar across hospital volume tertiles. Center volume was not predictive of readmission rates, total length of stay, intensive care unit length of stay, or total direct cost on multivariate analysis (all P > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Short- and long-term outcomes after PT are not affected by hospital volume. Although LV centers confine their cases to low-risk patients, HV centers transplant a higher percentage of high-risk donor and recipient combinations with equivalent outcomes.

Surgeon, not technique, defines outcomes after central venous port insertion.

BACKGROUND: Although central venous access for port placement is common and relatively safe, complications and poor resource utilization occur. We hypothesized that despite the simplicity of port placement, surgeon and/or resident performance-rather than technique-is associated with clinical outcomes and operating room efficiency. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Medical records of 1200 patients who underwent port placement between 2012 and 2015 at our institution were retrospectively reviewed. Insertion route (subclavian, internal jugular, cephalic cutdown), individual surgeon (A-G), surgeon volume, body mass index, patient age, and resident presence were evaluated to determine their association with operating room time, complications, and need for alternate insertion route. RESULTS: On univariate analysis, operating room times were significantly different among individual surgeons, with surgeons E and F having the longest operating room times (50 and 63 versus 31-40 min; P < 0.01) and switching to an alternate method more frequently (13.5% and 21.3%, versus 0%-10.3%, P < 0.01). On multivariate analyses, operating time was increased with elevated body mass index, resident presence, and switching to an alternate method. Individual surgeons had varied effects on operating time with two surgeons found to be the predominant drivers (OR 19 and 27; P < 0.01). With residents excluded, these two surgeons continued to increase operating times (OR 15 and 29; P < 0.01) and procedural complications (OR 3.2 and 5.9; P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Although port placement is ostensibly simple, individual surgeon performance is the primary driver of patient outcome and operative efficiency. In an era requiring optimized resource utilization and outcomes, these data demonstrate potential for enhanced programmatic organization and case distribution.

Hospital resources are associated with value-based surgical performance.

BACKGROUND: We have previously shown that inferior outcomes at safety-net hospitals are largely dependent on hospital factors. We hypothesized that hospitals providing "high value" care (low cost and better outcomes) would have advantages in human and financial resources. METHODS: The University HealthSystems Consortium Clinical Database and the American Hospital Association Annual Survey were used to examine hospitals performing eight complex surgical procedures from 2009 to 2013. Hospitals in the lowest quartiles of both mortality rate and cost were characterized as high value (n = 45), whereas those in the highest quartiles of both cost and mortality were low value (n = 45). Hospital size, staffing, and financial characteristics were compared between these two groups. RESULTS: On average, high-value hospitals had lower proportions of Medicaid patient days (17% versus 30%; P < 0.01), higher proportions of outpatient surgery (63% versus 53%; P < 0.01), and spent more on capital expenditures per bed ($155,710 versus $62,434; P < 0.05). Also, high-value hospitals employed more hospitalists (0.08 versus 0.04 per bed; P < 0.01), had more privileged physicians (2.04 versus 1.25 per bed; P < 0.01), and had more full-time equivalent personnel (8.48 versus 6.79 per bed; all P < 0.05). As a result, these hospitals appeared to be more efficient; high-value hospitals had more total admissions per bed (46 versus 38; P < 0.01), fewer days per admission (5.20 versus 5.77; P < 0.01), and more inpatient surgeries per bed (15.7 versus 12.6; all P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Hospitals that invest in more human resources and demonstrate increased throughput perform complex surgery at higher "value" (i.e., lower costs and mortality). Value-based purchasing initiatives that link hospital reimbursement to unadjusted surgical outcomes may exacerbate, rather than improve, disparities in surgical care that currently exist.

Hospital Utilization of Nationally Shared Liver Allografts from 2007 to 2012.

BACKGROUND: Due to the current geographic disparities in liver allocation a policy, which endorses broader sharing of allografts, has been proposed. We performed a retrospective cohort study to identify how nationally shared allografts, under the current policy, affect perioperative outcomes and resource utilization following liver transplantation (LT). METHODS: Univariate and multivariate analysis identified how patient characteristics and hospital outcomes were associated with national sharing. This analysis was based on 12,282 deceased donor liver transplants performed between 2007 and 2012 using the scientific registry of transplant recipients linked to the University HealthSystem Consortium database. RESULTS: Compared to locally distributed livers, nationally shared livers are more likely to have a donor risk index >1.8 (64.3 vs. 11.6 %), to be classified as expanded criteria donors (44.6 vs. 24.8 %), and transplanted into healthier recipients. Nationally shared LTs were more likely to be performed at high-volume centers (49.1 vs. 30.6 %), resulted in longer length of stay (11 vs. 9 days), and had higher in-hospital mortality (6.6 vs. 3.3 %). Additionally, nationally shared allografts were independent predictors of in-hospital mortality (OR 1.64, 95 % CI 1.13-2.39) and length of stay (OR 1.12, 95 % CI 1.02-1.21). CONCLUSION: These data suggest that increased national sharing of livers may result in inferior patient outcomes and increased resource utilization.

Variation by center and economic burden of readmissions after liver transplantation.

The rate and causes of hospital readmissions after liver transplantation (LT) remain largely unknown in the United States. Adult patients (n = 11,937; 43.1% of all LT cases) undergoing LT from 2007 to 2011 were examined with a linkage of the University HealthSystem Consortium and Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients databases to determine the incidence and risk factors for 30-day readmissions and utilization metrics 90 days after LT. The overall 30-day hospital readmission rate after LT was 37.9%, with half of patients admitted within 7 days after discharge. Readmitted patients had worse overall graft and patient survival with a 2-year follow-up. Multivariate analysis identified risk factors associated with 30-day hospital readmission, including a higher Model for End-Stage Liver Disease score, diabetes at LT, dialysis dependence, a high donor risk index allograft, and discharge to a rehabilitation facility. After adjustments for donor, recipient, and geographic factors in a hierarchical model, we found significant variation in readmission rates among hospitals ranging from 26.3% to 50.8% (odds ratio, 0.53-1.90). In the 90-day analysis after LT, readmissions accounted for $43,785 of added costs in comparison with patients who were not readmitted in the first 90 days. This is the first national report showing that more than one-third of LT recipients are readmitted to their center within 30 days and that readmissions are associated with center variation and increased resource utilization.

Adjuvant Chemotherapy and Radiation Therapy is Associated with Improved Survival for Patients with Extrahepatic Cholangiocarcinoma.

BACKGROUND: This study aimed to analyze adjuvant therapy among patients with extrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (EHC) at a national level. METHODS: The American College of Surgeons National Cancer Data Base was used to identify patients with resected EHC (pathologic stages 1-3) between 1998 and 2006 (n = 8741). Three groups were compared: surgery only (S, n = 5766), surgery plus adjuvant chemotherapy (AC, n = 450), and surgery plus adjuvant chemotherapy and radiation therapy (ACR, n = 1918). The study investigated how patient demographics, provider characteristics, and tumor-specific variables were associated with receipt of adjuvant therapy and overall survival. RESULTS: Patients who received adjuvant treatment were more likely to be younger (median age S, 70 years; AC, 65 years; ACR, 63 years), in the highest income quartile (>$46,000: S, 38.3 %; AC, 43.4 %; ACR, 44.7 %), and treated at a community cancer center (S, 43.0 %; AC, 50.7 %; ACR, 52.9 %) (all p < 0.001). These patients also were more likely to have positive lymph nodes (S, 34.7 %; AC, 69.6 %; ACR, 63.3 %), positive surgical margins (S, 5.9 %; AC, 7.1 %; ACR, 10.7 %), and stage 3 disease (S, 21.4 %; AC, 37.8 %; ACR, 37.9 %) (all p < 0.001). Multivariate analysis of the entire cohort showed improved survival with ACR (hazard ratio [HR] 0.82; 95 % confidence interval [CI] 0.75-0.91). The survival benefit was independent of margin status (R0: HR 0.88; 95 % CI 0.79-0.97; R1: HR 0.49; 95 % CI 0.38-0.62). CONCLUSIONS: This national analysis suggests that ACR are associated with improved survival for high-risk EHC patients, such as those with positive lymph nodes. Until randomized clinical trials are conducted, these may be the best available data to guide adjuvant therapy for resected EHC.

Readmission After Pancreaticoduodenectomy: The Influence of the Volume Effect Beyond Mortality.

BACKGROUND: As increased focus is placed on quality of care in surgery, readmission is an increasingly important metric by which hospital and surgeon quality is measured. For complex pancreatic surgery, we hypothesized that increased pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) volume may mitigate readmission rates. METHODS: The University Healthsystems Consortium database was queried for all patients (n = 9805) undergoing PD from 2009 to 2011. Hospitals were stratified into quintiles based on number of cases performed annually. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses were performed to identify factors associated with 30-day readmission. RESULTS: The 30-day readmission rate for patients undergoing PD was 19.1 %. Stratified by volume, hospitals performing the highest two quintiles of PDs annually (≥56 cases) had a significantly lower unadjusted readmission rate than those hospitals performing the lowest quintile (n ≤ 23 cases; 16.7 and 18.0 % vs. 20.9 %, p < 0.05). On univariate analysis, readmitted patients tended to have higher severity of illness (p < 0.01) and longer index admission (10 vs. 9 days, p < 0.01). Age and insurance status had no significant association with readmission. Multivariate analysis demonstrated that higher severity of illness (odds ratio [OR] 1.36, 95 % confidence interval [CI] 1.04-1.77, p = 0.02), discharge to rehab (OR 1.41, 95 % CI 1.19-1.66, p < 0.001), and surgery at the lowest volume hospitals (OR 1.28, 95 % CI 1.08-1.51, p = 0.004) were factors independently associated with readmission. CONCLUSIONS: Lower hospital volume is a significant risk factor for readmission after PD. To minimize the excess resource utilization that accompanies readmission, patients undergoing complex oncologic pancreatic surgery should be directed to hospitals most experienced in caring for this patient population.

Effect of pretransplant diabetes on short-term outcomes after liver transplantation: a national cohort study.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: We sought to analyse the effect of pretransplant diabetes on post-operative outcomes and resource utilization following liver transplantation. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was designed using a linkage between the University HealthSystem Consortium and Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients databases. We identified 12 442 patients who underwent liver transplantation at 63 centres from 2007-2011 and separated cohorts of patients with diabetes (n = 2971; 24%) and without (n = 9471; 76%) at the time of transplant. We analysed transplant related outcomes and short-term survival. RESULTS: Diabetic recipients were more likely to be male (70% vs 67%), non-white (32% vs 26%), older (age ≥60; 41% vs 28%), and have a higher BMI (29 vs 27; P < 0.001). More diabetic patients were on haemodialysis (10% vs 7%), had cirrhosis caused by NASH (24% vs 9%; P < 0.001), and received liver allografts from older donors (≥ 60 years; 19% vs 15%) with a higher donor risk index (>1.49; 46% vs 42%; P < 0.001). Post-transplant, diabetic recipients had longer hospital length of stay (10 vs 9 days), higher peri-transplant mortality (5% vs 4%) and 30-day readmission rates (41% vs 37%), were less often discharged to home (83% vs 87%; P < 0.05), and had inferior graft and patient survival. Liver transplant was more expensive for type 1 vs type 2 diabetics ($105 078 vs $100 624, P < 0.001). Poorly controlled diabetic recipients were less likely discharged home following transplant (75% vs 82%, P < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: This national study indicates that pretransplant diabetes is associated with inferior post-operative outcomes and increased resource utilization after liver transplantation.

Natural history and treatment trends in hepatocellular carcinoma subtypes: Insights from a national cancer registry.

BACKGROUND: Histopathologic advancements have identified several rare subtypes of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), but the clinical significance of these distinctions is incompletely understood. Our aim was to investigate pathologic and treatment differences between HCC variants. METHODS: The American College of Surgeons National Cancer Data Base (1998-2011) was queried to identify 784 patients with surgical management of six rare HCC subtypes: fibrolamellar (FL, n = 206), scirrhous (SC, n = 29), spindle cell (SP, n = 20), clear cell (CC, n = 169), mixed type (M, n = 291), and trabecular (T, n = 69). We examined associations between demographic, tumor and treatment-specific variables, and overall survival (OS). RESULTS: Patients with FL-HCC were younger than other variants (median age 27 vs. 54-61, P < 0.001), more commonly female (56.3%, P < 0.001), and less likely to receive a transplant (3.66%, P < 0.001). Patients with FL- and Sp-HCC presented more frequently with larger tumors (>5 cm, P < 0.001) and node-positive disease (P < 0.001). Better OS was associated with lower pathologic stage, node-negative disease, FL-HCC, and liver transplant. Adjuvant therapy (11% of patients) was not associated with better OS. CONCLUSIONS: This largest series of recognized HCC variants demonstrates distinct differences in presentation, treatment, and prognosis. These findings can provide a valuable reference for clinicians and patients who encounter these rare clinical entities.

Resource utilization in esophagectomy: When higher costs are associated with worse outcomes.

INTRODUCTION: Care of the esophagectomy patient requires significant resources. We sought to determine which patient and provider variables contribute to resource utilization and their association with clinical outcomes. METHODS: 6,737 patients undergoing esophagectomy were identified from the University Healthsystem Consortium (UHC). Linear and logistic regression models were used to determine whether characteristics, including age, severity of illness (SOI) and procedural volume were associated with mortality, length of stay (LOS), discharge disposition, readmission rates, and cost. RESULTS: Older patients were twice as likely to suffer post-operative death (OR 2.12; 95%CI 1.7-2.7), three times more likely to be discharged to extended care facilities (31.9% vs. 10.6%, P < 0.001), and cost 8.4% more ($27,628 vs. $25,481, P < 0.001). Similarly, patients with higher SOI were more likely to suffer post- operative death (OR 14.6; 4.7-45.9), be readmitted (OR 1.3; 1.1-1.6), and have longer hospital stays (RR 1.3; 1.8-2.1). Patients with the highest index hospital costs were five times more likely to be discharged to an extended care facility (P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Older patients and those with a higher SOI have higher perioperative mortality, readmission rates, hospital costs, and require more post- operative care. With increasingly scrutinized health care costs, these data provide guidance for more careful patient selection.