Risk of Synchronous Distant Recurrence at Time of Locoregional Recurrence in Patients With Stage II and III Breast Cancer (AFT-01).

Purpose National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines recommend systemic staging imaging at the time of locoregional breast cancer recurrence. Limited data support this recommendation. We determined the rate of synchronous distant recurrence at the time of locoregional recurrence in high-risk patients and identified clinical factors associated with an increased risk of synchronous metastases. Methods A stage-stratified random sample of 11,046 patients with stage II to III breast cancer in 2006 to 2007 was selected from the National Cancer Database for participation in a Commission on Cancer special study. From medical record abstraction of imaging and recurrence data, we identified patients who experienced locoregional recurrence within 5 years of diagnosis. Synchronous distant metastases (within 30 days of locoregional recurrence) were determined. We used multivariable logistic regression to identify factors associated with synchronous metastases. Results Four percent experienced locoregional recurrence (n = 445). Synchronous distant metastases were identified in 27% (n = 120). Initial presenting stage ( P = .03), locoregional recurrence type ( P = .01), and insurance status ( P = .03) were associated with synchronous distant metastases. The proportion of synchronous metastases was highest for women with lymph node (35%), postmastectomy chest wall (30%), and in-breast (15%) recurrence; 54% received systemic staging imaging within 30 days of a locoregional recurrence. Conclusion These findings support current recommendations for systemic imaging in the setting of locoregional recurrence, particularly for patients with lymph node or chest wall recurrences. Because most patients with isolated locoregional recurrence will be recommended locoregional treatment, early identification of distant metastases through routine systemic imaging may spare them treatments unlikely to extend their survival.

National assessment of margin status as a quality indicator after pancreatic cancer surgery.

BACKGROUND: Surgical margin involvement is an important outcome after pancreatic cancer surgery; however, variation in pathologic review practices may limit its use as a quality indicator. Our objectives were to assess variation in hospital performance and the reliability of margin involvement after pancreatic cancer surgery. METHODS: From the National Cancer Data Base, patients who underwent pancreatic resection for stage I to III adenocarcinoma were identified. Risk-adjusted surgical margin involvement was evaluated using hierarchical regression methods, and variation in hospital performance and reliability was determined. RESULTS: From 1,002 hospitals, 14,889 patients underwent pancreatic resection for adenocarcinoma, and 3,573 (24.0 %) had an involved surgical margin (R1 22.8 %; R2 1.2 %). The strongest predictors associated with margin involvement were T stage [T3: odds ratio (OR) 2.08, 95 % confidence interval (CI) 1.68-2.59; T4: OR 7.26, 95 % CI 5.50-9.60; vs. T1] and tumor size (2-3.9 cm: OR 1.66, 95 % CI 1.39-1.98, ≥ 4 cm: OR 2.28, 95 % CI 1.90-2.74; vs. <2 cm). Factors associated with a decreased likelihood of margin involvement were the use of neoadjuvant therapy and hospital type (academic and National Cancer Institute-designated comprehensive cancer centers vs. community). At the hospital level, the mean risk-adjusted surgical margin involvement rate was 25.9 % and ranged 10.1 to 50.5 %. Twenty-one (2.1 %) hospitals had lower-than-expected and 17 (1.7 %) had higher-than-expected margin involvement. A minimum acceptable reliability of 0.4 was met after 13 cases and was achieved by 249 hospitals that performed 79 % of pancreatic resections assessed. CONCLUSIONS: Despite differences in pathologic evaluation practices, hospitals can be feasibly and reliably provided comparative data on surgical margin status after resection for pancreatic cancer.

Wait times for cancer surgery in the United States: trends and predictors of delays.

BACKGROUND: Patients frequently voice concerns regarding wait times for cancer treatment; however, little is known about the length of wait times from diagnosis to surgery in the United States. Our objectives were (1) to assess changes in wait times over the past decade and (2) to identify patient, tumor, and hospital factors associated with prolonged wait times for initial cancer treatment. METHODS: Using the National Cancer Data Base (1995-2005), 1,228,071 patients were identified who underwent resection for nonmetastatic breast, colon, esophageal, gastric, liver, lung, pancreatic, and rectal cancer at 1443 hospitals. Multivariable models were developed to assess factors associated with time to treatment. RESULTS: From 1995 to 2005, the median time from diagnosis to treatment increased for all cancers (P < 0.0001). The time from diagnosis to treatment was significantly longer at National Cancer Institute Comprehensive Cancer Centers and Veterans' Administration institutions versus community hospitals (P < 0.0001). On multivariable analysis, patients were significantly more likely to undergo initial treatment > 30 days from diagnosis if older (6 of 8 cancers), black (5 of 8 cancers), had more comorbidities (6 of 8 cancers), had Stage I disease (7 of 8 cancers), or were treated at National Cancer Institute Comprehensive Cancer Centers or Veterans' Affairs institutions (all cancers). CONCLUSIONS: Wait times for cancer treatment have increased over the last decade. As case loads increase, wait times for treatment are likely to continue increasing, potentially resulting in additional treatment delay. Additional resources and strategies are needed to reduce wait times for cancer treatment in the United States.

Comparison of commission on cancer-approved and -nonapproved hospitals in the United States: implications for studies that use the National Cancer Data Base.

BACKGROUND: The Commission on Cancer (CoC) designates cancer programs on the basis of the ability to provide a wide range of oncologic services and specialists. All CoC-approved hospitals are required to report their cancer diagnoses to the National Cancer Data Base (NCDB), and the cancer diagnoses at these hospitals account for approximately 70% of all new cancers diagnosed in the United States annually. However, it is unknown how CoC-approved programs compare with non-CoC-approved hospitals. METHODS: By using the American Hospital Association Annual Survey Database (2006), CoC-approved and non-CoC-approved hospitals were compared with respect to structural characteristics (ie, accreditations, geography, and oncologic services provided). RESULTS: Of the 4,850 hospitals identified, 1,412 (29%) were CoC-approved hospitals, and 3,438 (71%) were not CoC-approved hospitals. The proportion of CoC-approved hospitals varied at the state level from 0% in Wyoming to 100% in Delaware. Compared with non-CoC-approved hospitals, CoC-approved programs were more frequently accredited by the Joint Commission, designated as a Comprehensive Cancer Center by the National Cancer Institute, and affiliated with a medical school or residency program (P < .001). CoC-approved hospitals were less likely to be critical access hospitals or located in rural areas (P < .001). CoC-approved hospitals had more total beds and performed more operations per year (P < .001). CoC-approved programs more frequently offered oncology-related services, including screening programs, chemotherapy and radiation therapy services, and hospice/palliative care (P < .001). CONCLUSION: Compared with non-CoC-approved hospitals, CoC-approved hospitals were larger, were more frequently located in urban locations, and had more cancer-related services available to patients. Studies that use the NCDB should acknowledge this limitation when relevant.

Lymph node evaluation as a colon cancer quality measure: a national hospital report card.

BACKGROUND: Examination of 12 or more regional lymph nodes for colon cancer is associated with improved staging and survival, and the National Quality Forum recently endorsed lymph node examination for colon cancer as a quality surveillance measure. However, information regarding the extent of hospital compliance with the 12-node measure in the United States is lacking. METHODS: From the National Cancer Data Base, 1296 hospitals that performed 156 789 colectomies in 1996-1997 and 2004-2005 were identified, and rates of hospital-level compliance (defined as examination of >or=12 nodes in >or=75% of patients) in these two time periods were compared. Multivariable models were developed to determine if hospital type, volume, or differences in case mix were associated with 12-node measure compliance. All statistical tests were two-sided. RESULTS: In 1996-1997, 15% of hospitals were compliant with the 12-node measure; in 2004-2005 the percentage of compliant hospitals had increased to 38%. From 1996-1997 to 2004-2005, 12-node measure compliance increased at 980 hospitals, remained unchanged at 6 hospitals, and decreased at 310 hospitals. In 2004-2005, National Cancer Institute-designated Comprehensive Cancer Centers were more frequently compliant with the 12-node measure than other academic hospitals, Veterans' Administration hospitals, or community hospitals (78.1% versus 52.4%, 53.1%, and 33.7%, respectively, all P < .001), even after adjustment for differences in characteristics of the colon cancer patients at these hospitals. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides a national report card of nearly 1300 hospitals showing that more than 60% of institutions failed to achieve a compliance benchmark for the 12-node measure. Considerable improvement is needed in colon cancer nodal evaluation in the United States.

Effect of hospital type and volume on lymph node evaluation for gastric and pancreatic cancer.

HYPOTHESIS: For gastric and pancreatic cancer, regional lymph node evaluation is important to accurately stage disease in a patient and may be associated with improved survival. We hypothesized that National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN), National Cancer Institute (NCI)-designated institutions, and high-volume hospitals examine more lymph nodes for gastric and pancreatic malignant neoplasms than do low-volume centers and community hospitals. DESIGN: Volume-outcome study. SETTING: Academic research. PATIENTS: Using the National Cancer Data Base (January 1, 2003, to December 31, 2004), patients were identified who underwent resection for gastric (n = 3088) and pancreatic (n = 1130 [pancreaticoduodenectomy only]) cancer. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Multivariable logistic regression analysis was used to assess the effect of hospital type and volume on nodal evaluation (>or=15 nodes). RESULTS: Only 23.2% of patients with gastric cancer and 16.4% of patients with pancreatic cancer in the United States underwent evaluation of at least 15 lymph nodes. Patients undergoing surgery had more lymph nodes examined at NCCN-NCI hospitals than at community hospitals (median, 12 vs 6 for gastric cancer and 9 vs 6 for pancreatic cancer; P < .001). Patients at highest-volume hospitals had more lymph nodes examined than patients at low-volume hospitals (median, 10 vs 6 for gastric cancer and 8 vs 6 for pancreatic cancer; P < .001). On multivariable analysis, patients undergoing surgery at NCCN-NCI and high-volume hospitals were more likely to have at least 15 lymph nodes evaluated compared with patients undergoing surgery at community hospitals and low-volume centers (P < .001 and P =.02, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Nodal examination is important for staging, adjuvant therapy decision making, and clinical trial stratification. Moreover, differences in nodal evaluation may contribute to improved long-term outcomes at NCCN-NCI centers and high-volume hospitals for patients with gastric and pancreatic cancer.

National failure to operate on early stage pancreatic cancer.

BACKGROUND: Despite studies demonstrating improved outcomes, pessimism persists regarding the effectiveness of surgery for pancreatic cancer. Our objective was to evaluate utilization of surgery in early stage disease and identify factors predicting failure to undergo surgery. METHODS: Using the National Cancer Data Base (1995-2004), 9559 patients were identified with potentially resectable tumors (pretreatment clinical Stage I: T1N0M0 and T2N0M0). Multivariate models were employed to identify factors predicting failure to undergo surgery and assess the impact of pancreatectomy on survival. RESULTS: Of clinical Stage I patients 71.4% (6823/9559) did not undergo surgery; 6.4% (616/9559) were excluded due to comorbidities; 4.2% (403/9559) refused surgery; 9.1% (869/9559) were excluded due to age; and 38.2% (3,644/9559) with potentially resectable cancers were classified as "not offered surgery." Of the 28.6% (2736/9559) of patients who underwent surgery, 96.0% (2630/2736) underwent pancreatectomy, and 4.0% (458/2736) had unresectable tumors. Patients were less likely to undergo surgery if they were older than 65 years, were black, were on Medicare or Medicaid, had pancreatic head lesions, earned lower annual incomes, or had less education (P < 0.0001). Patients were less likely to receive surgery at low-volume and community centers. Patients underwent surgery more frequently at National Cancer Institute/National Comprehensive Cancer Network-designated cancer centers (P < 0.0001). Patients who were not offered surgery had significantly better survival than those with Stage III or IV disease but worse survival than patients who underwent pancreatectomy for Stage I disease (P < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: This is the first study to characterize the striking underuse of pancreatectomy in the United States. Of early stage pancreatic cancer patients without any identifiable contraindications, 38.2% failed to undergo surgery.