Patterns and Impact of Fragmented Care in Stage II and III Gastric Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Optimal management of stage II/III gastric cancer requires multidisciplinary care, often necessitating treatment at more than one facility. We aimed to determine patterns of "fragmented" care and its impact on outcomes, including concordance with National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines and overall survival. METHODS: The 2006-2016 National Cancer Database was queried for patients with clinical stage II/III gastric adenocarcinoma who received preoperative therapy in addition to surgery. Patients were stratified based on whether surgery and chemotherapy/chemoradiation were performed at one versus multiple facilities (termed "coordinated" and "fragmented" care, respectively). Multivariable logistic regression was performed to identify factors associated with fragmented care. Survival was compared using Kaplan-Meier and Cox proportional hazards methods. RESULTS: Overall, 2033 patients met study criteria: 1043 (51.3%) received coordinated care and 990 (48.7%) fragmented care. There was no significant difference in time to surgery or pathologic upstaging by care structure. On adjusted analysis, factors associated with receipt of fragmented care included increasing age and distance traveled to the treating facility. Factors associated with coordinated care included metropolitan residence and treatment at academic and high-volume centers. Fragmented care was associated with a reduction in guideline-preferred perioperative chemotherapy (odds ratio [OR] 0.78, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.63-0.97, p = 0.02) and increased mortality (HR 1.16, 95% CI 1.00-1.34, p = 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: For patients with stage II/III gastric cancer, fragmented care is associated with inferior outcomes, including a reduction in preferred perioperative treatment and survival. Further work is needed to ensure equitable outcomes among patients as complex cancer care becomes more regionalized.

Hospital Volume Threshold for the Treatment of Retroperitoneal Sarcoma.

BACKGROUND: Retroperitoneal sarcomas (RPS) are rare, histologically heterogeneous, and anatomically complex tumors. National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines recommend evaluation and management by multidisciplinary teams with experience in sarcoma. Our aim was to determine an appropriate hospital volume threshold for the treatment of RPS. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients undergoing resection of RPS were identified from the National Cancer Data Base (1998-2012). Multivariable modeling with restricted cubic splines was employed to examine the association between hospital volume and survival and identify possible hospital volume threshold. RESULTS: The study included 5,340 patients who underwent surgery at 909 different hospitals. Median annual volume was two cases per year. After adjustment, hospital volume was associated with improved survival (p=0.01), without cutoff. The cohort was then grouped into: Low-volume (≤5 cases/year), intermediate-volume (6-10 cases/year), and high-volume (>10 cases/year). The majority of patients were treated in low-volume hospitals (86%), compared to 9% in intermediate- and 5% in high-volume centers; 44% of patients were treated in hospitals that performed one case per year. Compared to low-volume, high-volume hospitals more often had patients with high-grade and larger tumors. Adjusted 90-day mortality was significantly lower in high- vs. low-volume hospitals (odds ratio(OR)=0.25, p=0.02). With adjustment, treatment in high- vs. low-volume hospitals was associated with lower odds of margin positivity (OR=0.58, p=0.001), and improved overall survival (hazard ratio(HR)=0.61, p=0.002). CONCLUSION: Treatment of RPS in high-volume centers is associated with significant reduction in short-term mortality and improved long-term survival. Hospital volume may be a surrogate for the infrastructure and support necessary for the optimal management of these complex malignancies.