Does Hospital Operative Volume Influence the Outcomes of Patients After Heated Intraperitoneal Chemotherapy for Peritoneal Carcinomatosis?

BACKGROUND: For some cancer operations, center volume is associated with improved patient outcomes. Whether this association is true for cytoreductive surgery/heated intraperitoneal chemotherapy (CRS/HIPEC) is unclear. Given the rapidly expanding use of CRS/HIPEC, the aim of this analysis was to determine whether a volume-outcome relationship exists for this strategy. METHODS: The Vizient Clinical Database® was queried for CRS/HIPEC cases from January 2020 through December 2022. Low-, medium-, and high-volume designations were made by sorting hospitals by case volume and creating equal tertiles based on total number of cases. Analysis was performed via one-way ANOVA with post-hoc Tukey test, as indicated. RESULTS: In the 36-month study period, 5165 cases were identified across 149 hospitals. Low- (n = 113), medium- (n = 25), and high-volume (n = 11) centers performed a median of 4, 21, and 47 cases per annum, respectively. Most cases were performed for appendiceal (39.3%) followed by gynecologic neoplasms (20.4%). Groups were similar with respect to age, gender, race, comorbidities, and histology. Low-volume centers were more likely to utilize the ICU post-operatively (59.6% vs. 40.5% vs. 36.3%; p = 0.02). No differences were observed in morbidity (9.4% vs. 7.1% vs. 9.0%, p = 0.71), mortality (0.9% vs. 0.6% vs. 0.7%, p = 0.93), length of stay (9.3 vs. 9.4 vs. 10 days, p = 0.83), 30-day readmissions (5.6% vs. 5.6% vs. 5.6%, p = 1.0), or total cost among groups. CONCLUSIONS: No association was found between CRS/HIPEC hospital volume and post-operative outcomes. These data suggest that in academic medical centers with HIPEC programs, outcomes for commonly treated cancers are not associated with hospital volume.

Role of Adjuvant Multimodality Therapy After Curative-Intent Resection of Ampullary Carcinoma.

Importance: Ampullary adenocarcinoma is a rare malignant neoplasm that arises within the duodenal ampullary complex. The role of adjuvant therapy (AT) in the treatment of ampullary adenocarcinoma has not been clearly defined. Objective: To determine if long-term survival after curative-intent resection of ampullary adenocarcinoma may be improved by selection of patients for AT directed by histologic subtype. Design, Setting, and Participants: This multinational, retrospective cohort study was conducted at 12 institutions from April 1, 2000, to July 31, 2017, among 357 patients with resected, nonmetastatic ampullary adenocarcinoma receiving surgery alone or AT. Cox proportional hazards regression was used to identify covariates associated with overall survival. The surgery alone and AT cohorts were matched 1:1 by propensity scores based on the likelihood of receiving AT or by survival hazard from Cox modeling. Overall survival was compared with Kaplan-Meier estimates. Exposures: Adjuvant chemotherapy (fluorouracil- or gemcitabine-based) with or without radiotherapy. Main Outcomes and Measures: Overall survival. Results: A total of 357 patients (156 women and 201 men; median age, 65.8 years [interquartile range, 58-74 years]) underwent curative-intent resection of ampullary adenocarcinoma. Patients with intestinal subtype had a longer median overall survival compared with those with pancreatobiliary subtype (77 vs 54 months; P = .05). Histologic subtype was not associated with AT administration (intestinal, 52.9% [101 of 191]; and pancreatobiliary, 59.5% [78 of 131]; P = .24). Patients with pancreatobiliary histologic subtype most commonly received gemcitabine-based regimens (71.0% [22 of 31]) or combinations of gemcitabine and fluorouracil (12.9% [4 of 31]), whereas treatment of those with intestinal histologic subtype was more varied (fluorouracil, 50.0% [17 of 34]; gemcitabine, 44.1% [15 of 34]; P = .01). In the propensity score-matched cohort, AT was not associated with a survival benefit for either histologic subtype (intestinal: hazard ratio, 1.21; 95% CI, 0.67-2.16; P = .53; pancreatobiliary: hazard ratio, 1.35; 95% CI, 0.66-2.76; P = .41). Conclusions and Relevance: Adjuvant therapy was more frequently used in patients with poor prognostic factors but was not associated with demonstrable improvements in survival, regardless of tumor histologic subtype. The value of a multimodality regimen remains poorly defined.

Complications and Surveillance After Bariatric Surgery.

OPINION STATEMENT: Bariatric surgery represents a durable and safe treatment modality for morbid obesity. Bariatric surgery results in weight loss by one of two-and possibly both-primary mechanisms, reducing the amount of tolerable intake (restrictive) and reducing the amount of nutrients absorbed by bypassing absorptive intestine (malabsorptive). These procedures have consistently demonstrated superior resolution of obesity and many associated co-morbid conditions as compared to medical management. Beyond the periprocedural complications of surgery, there are longitudinal risks such as weight regain, anatomic complications, and micronutrient deficiencies. Complications related to the anatomic alteration after bariatric surgery include internal herniation, marginal ulcers, dumping syndrome, and gastric band-related complications. Physicians who take care of bariatric patients at any point in their post-operative care must be vigilant for these complications, as they may necessitate urgent intervention or re-operation. Micronutrient deficiencies, which commonly occur after malabsorptive procedures, may present with a wide range of symptoms-including neuropathies, anemia, poor wound healing, and hair loss, among others. Deficiencies of vitamins and minerals frequently result in the need for long-term supplementation and may necessitate intravenous repletion when severe. Bariatric surgery may also alter the absorption of commonly prescribed medications, including anti-psychotic medications.