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.

Readmission and complications after robotic surgery: experience of 10,000 operations at a comprehensive cancer center.

Evaluation of safety is of paramount importance with adoption of novel surgical technology. Although robotic surgery has become widely used in oncologic surgery, analysis of safety is lacking in comparison to traditional techniques. Standardized assessment of robotic surgical outcomes and adverse events following oncologic surgery is necessary for quality improvement with innovative technology. Between 2003 and 2016, 10,013 unique robotic operations were performed in 9,858 patients. Our prospectively maintained database was retrospectively reviewed for hospital readmissions and Clavien-Dindo grade ≥ 2 complications within 30 days. Multivariable logistic regression was used to identify predictors of surgical complications and hospital readmissions. Cases were stratified by discipline: genitourinary (n = 8240), gynecologic (n = 857), thoracic (n = 457), gastrointestinal (n = 322), hepatobiliary (n = 60), ear/nose/throat (n = 44) and general (n = 33). Intraoperative complications occurred in 42 surgeries (0.4%). Postoperative complications occurred in 946 patients [9.4%, highest grade 2 (n = 574), 3 (n = 288), 4 (n = 72), 5 (n = 10)]. Most frequent complications were ileus (154, 16.3%), anemia (91, 9.6%), cardiac arrhythmia (62, 6.6%), deep vein thrombosis/pulmonary embolus (47, 5.0%), wound infection (45, 4.8%) and urinary leak (43, 4.5%). 405 patients (4.0%) required readmission. Most common causes for hospital readmission were ileus (44, 10.9%), urinary leak (23, 5.7%), urinary tract infection (23, 5.7%), intra-abdominal abscess/fluid collection (23, 5.7%), and small bowel obstruction (19, 4.7%). On multivariable analysis, longer operative time and older age predicted complications and readmissions (p ≤ 0.02). Robotic-assisted surgery appears a safe for oncologic surgery with acceptable hospital readmission and complication rates. Older age and longer operative time were associated with complications and readmission.

Enhanced Recovery after Surgery for Gastric Cancer Patients Improves Clinical Outcomes at a US Cancer Center.

PURPOSE: Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocols for gastric cancer patients have shown improved outcomes in Asia. However, data on gastric cancer ERAS (GC-ERAS) programs in the United States are sparse. The purpose of this study was to compare perioperative outcomes before and after implementation of an GC-ERAS protocol at a National Comprehensive Cancer Center in the United States. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We reviewed medical records of patients surgically treated for gastric cancer with curative intent from January 2012 to October 2016 and compared the GC-ERAS group (November 1, 2015-October 1, 2016) with the historical control (HC) group (January 1, 2012-October 31, 2015). Propensity score matching was used to adjust for age, sex, number of comorbidities, body mass index, stage of disease, and distal versus total gastrectomy. RESULTS: Of a total of 95 identified patients, matching analysis resulted in 20 and 40 patients in the GC-ERAS and HC groups, respectively. Lower rates of nasogastric tube (35% vs. 100%, P<0.001) and intraabdominal drain placement (25% vs. 85%, P<0.001), faster advancement of diet (P<0.001), and shorter length of hospital stay (5.5 vs. 7.8 days, P=0.01) were observed in the GC-ERAS group than in the HC group. The GC-ERAS group showed a trend toward increased use of minimally invasive surgery (P=0.06). There were similar complication and 30-day readmission rates between the two groups (P=0.57 and P=0.66, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: The implementation of a GC-ERAS protocol significantly improved perioperative outcomes in a western cancer center. This finding warrants further prospective investigation.

Wireless Monitoring Program of Patient-Centered Outcomes and Recovery Before and After Major Abdominal Cancer Surgery.

IMPORTANCE: A combined subjective and objective wireless monitoring program of patient-centered outcomes can be carried out in patients before and after major abdominal cancer surgery. OBJECTIVE: To conduct a proof-of-concept pilot study of a wireless, patient-centered outcomes monitoring program before and after major abdominal cancer surgery. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: In this proof-of-concept pilot study, patients wore wristband pedometers and completed online patient-reported outcome surveys (symptoms and quality of life) 3 to 7 days before surgery, during hospitalization, and up to 2 weeks after discharge. Reminders via email were generated for all moderate to severe scores for symptoms and quality of life. Surgery-related data were collected via electronic medical records, and complications were calculated using the Clavien-Dindo classification. The study was carried out in the inpatient and outpatient surgical oncology unit of one National Cancer Institute-designated comprehensive cancer center. Eligible patients were scheduled to undergo curative resection for hepatobiliary and gastrointestinal cancers, were English speaking, and were 18 years or older. Twenty participants were enrolled over 4 months. The study dates were April 1, 2015, to July 31, 2016. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Outcomes included adherence to wearing the pedometer, adherence to completing the surveys (MD Anderson Symptom Inventory and EuroQol 5-dimensional descriptive system), and satisfaction with the monitoring program. RESULTS: This study included a final sample of 20 patients (median age, 55.5 years [range, 22-74 years]; 15 [75%] female) with evaluable data. Pedometer adherence (88% [17 of 20] before surgery vs 83% [16 of 20] after discharge) was higher than survey adherence (65% to 75% [13 of 20 and 15 of 20] completed). The median number of daily steps at day 7 was 1689 (19% of daily steps at baseline), which correlated with the Comprehensive Complication Index, for which the median was 15 of 100 (r = -0.64, P < .05). Postdischarge overall symptom severity (2.3 of 10) and symptom interference with activities (3.5 of 10) were mild. Pain (4.4 of 10), fatigue (4.7 of 10), and appetite loss (4.0 of 10) were moderate after surgery. Quality-of-life scores were lowest at discharge (66.6 of 100) but improved at week 2 (73.9 of 100). While patient-reported outcomes returned to baseline at 2 weeks, the number of daily steps was only one-third of preoperative baseline. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Wireless monitoring of combined subjective and objective patient-centered outcomes can be carried out in the surgical oncology setting. Preoperative and postoperative patient-centered outcomes have the potential of identifying high-risk populations who may need additional interventions to support postoperative functional and symptom recovery.

The 30-year experience-A meta-analysis of randomised and high-quality non-randomised studies of hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy in the treatment of gastric cancer.

IMPORTANCE: Hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) has been used within various multimodality strategies for the prevention and treatment of gastric cancer peritoneal carcinomatosis. OBJECTIVE: To systematically evaluate the role of HIPEC in gastric cancer and clarify its effectiveness at different stages of peritoneal disease progression. DATA SOURCES: Medline and Embase databases between January 1, 1985 and June 1, 2016. STUDY SELECTION: Randomised control trials and high-quality non-randomised control trials selected on a validated tool (methodological index for non-randomised studies) comparing HIPEC and standard oncological management for the treatment of advanced stage gastric cancer with and without peritoneal carcinomatosis were considered. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: A random-effects network meta-analysis. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The primary outcomes were overall survival and disease recurrence. Secondary outcomes were overall complications, type of complications, and sites of recurrence. RESULTS: A total of 11 RCTs and 21 non-randomised control trials (2520 patients) were included. For patients without the presence of peritoneal carcinomatosis (PC), the overall survival rates between the HIPEC and control groups at 3 or 5 years resulted in favour of the HIPEC group (risk ratio [RR] = 0.82, P = 0.01). No difference in the 3-year overall survival (RR = 0.99, P = 0.85) in but a prolonged median survival of 4 months in favour of the HIPEC group (WMD = 4.04, P < 0.001) was seen in patients with PC. HIPEC was associated with significantly higher risk of complications for both patients with PC (RR = 2.15, P < 0.01) and without (RR = 2.17, P < 0.01). This increased risk in the HIPEC group was related to systemic drugs toxicity. Anastomotic leakage rates were found to be similar between groups. CONCLUSIONS: Our study demonstrates a survival advantage of the use of HIPEC as a prophylactic strategy and suggests that patients whose disease burden is limited to positive cytology and limited nodal involvement may benefit the most from HIPEC. For patients with extensive carcinomatosis, the completeness of cytoreductive surgery is a critical prognostic factor for survival. Future RCTs should better define patient selection criteria.

Lymphadenectomy with Optimum of 29 Lymph Nodes Retrieved Associated with Improved Survival in Advanced Gastric Cancer: A 25,000-Patient International Database Study.

BACKGROUND: Gastric adenocarcinoma is an aggressive disease with frequent lymph node (LN) metastases for which lymphadenectomy results in a survival benefit. In the US, the National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines recommend D2 lymphadenectomy or a minimum of 15 LNs retrieved. However, retrieval of only 15 LNs is considered by most international guidelines as inadequate. We sought to evaluate the survival benefits associated with a more complete lymphadenectomy. STUDY DESIGN: An international database was constructed by combining gastric cancer cases from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results program database (n = 13,932) and the Yonsei University Gastric Cancer database (n = 11,358) (total n = 25,289). Kaplan-Meier survival analysis was performed along with Joinpoint analysis to obtain the optimal number of LNs to retrieve based on survival. Prognostic significance of number of nodes retrieved was then confirmed with univariate and multivariate analyses. RESULTS: Analysis for both mean and median survival yielded 29 LNs removed as the Joinpoint. This was confirmed with multivariate analysis, where 15 retrieved LNs cutoff fell out of the model and 29 retrieved LNs remained intact, with a hazard ratio of 0.799 (95% CI 0.759 to 0.842; p < 0.001). Stage-stratified Kaplan-Meier analysis for a cutoff point of 29 LNs also demonstrated a statistically significant improvement in survival. CONCLUSIONS: Joinpoint analysis has allowed for the creation of a model demonstrating the point at which additional dissection would not provide additional benefit. This large international dataset analysis demonstrates that the maximal survival advantage is seen by performing a lymphadenectomy with a minimum of 29 LNs retrieved.

Robotic gastrectomy as an oncologically sound alternative to laparoscopic resections for the treatment of early-stage gastric cancers.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the comparative safety and efficacy of robotic vs laparoscopic gastrectomy for early-stage gastric cancer. DESIGN: Retrospective analysis. SETTING: Tertiary hospital. PATIENTS: Eight hundred twenty-seven patients with gastric cancer. INTERVENTIONS: Between July 2005 and April 2009, 827 patients with gastric cancer underwent 236 robotic and 591 laparoscopic radical gastrectomies with curative intent. The patients' data were prospectively collected and retrospectively analyzed. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: We performed a comparative analysis between the robotic surgery group and laparoscopic surgery group for preoperative patient characteristics, intraoperative factors, and postoperative morbidity and mortality. RESULTS: The robotic group was younger than the laparoscopic group, but other preoperative patient characteristics did not differ. The mean operative time for the robotic group (219.5 minutes) was on average 49 minutes longer than the laparoscopic group (170.7 minutes) (P < .001), while mean blood loss was significantly less in the robotic group (91.6 mL vs 147.9 mL; P = .002). The robotic group had mortality of 0.4% and morbidity of 11.0%, comparable with those of the laparoscopic group (P > .05). The number of lymph nodes retrieved per level was adequate in both groups and did not differ significantly. Robotic D1+α (n = 5), D1+ß (n = 126), and D2 (n = 105) dissections retrieved 27.2, 36.7, and 42.4 mean numbers of lymph nodes, respectively. Except for 3 cases in the laparoscopic group, all specimens had negative margins. CONCLUSIONS: Our largest comparative study demonstrates robotic gastrectomy to have better short-term and comparable oncologic outcomes compared with laparoscopic gastrectomy. A robotic approach to gastric cancer is a promising alternative to laparoscopic surgery.