Disparities in guideline-concordant treatment for node-positive, non-small cell lung cancer following surgery.

OBJECTIVES: To examine guideline concordance across a national sample and determine the relationship between socioeconomic factors, use of recommended postoperative adjuvant therapy, and outcomes for patients with resected pN1 or pN2 non-small cell lung cancer. METHODS: All margin-negative pT1-3 N1-2 M0 non-small cell lung cancers treated with lobectomy or pneumonectomy without induction therapy in the National Cancer Database between 2006 and 2013 were included. Use of guideline-concordant adjuvant treatment, defined as chemotherapy for pN1 disease and chemotherapy with or without radiation for pN2 disease, was examined. Multivariable regression models were developed to determine associations of clinical factors with guideline adherence. Survival was estimated using Kaplan-Meier and Cox proportional hazard analyses. RESULTS: Of 13,462 patients, 10,113 had pN1 disease and 3349 had pN2 disease. Guideline-concordant adjuvant therapy was used in 6844 (67.7%) patients with pN1 disease and 2622 (78.3%) patients with pN2 disease. After multivariable adjustment, insurance status, older age, pneumonectomy, readmission, and longer postoperative stays were associated with lower likelihood of guideline concordance. Conversely, increased education level, later year of diagnosis, and greater nodal stage were associated with greater concordance. Overall, patients treated with guideline-concordant therapy had superior survival (5-year survival: 51.6 vs 36.0%; hazard ratio, 0.66; 95% confidence interval, 0.62-0.70, P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Socioeconomic factors, including insurance status and geographic region, are associated with disparities in use of adjuvant therapy as recommended by National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines. These disparities significantly impact patient survival. Future work should focus on improving access to appropriate adjuvant therapies among the under insured and socioeconomically disadvantaged.

Minimally Invasive Versus Open Esophagectomy for Esophageal Cancer: A Population-Based Analysis.

BACKGROUND: The objective of this study was to evaluate outcomes of minimally invasive approaches to esophagectomy using population-level data. METHODS: Multivariable regression modeling was used to determine predictors associated with the use of minimally invasive approaches for patients in the National Cancer Data Base who underwent resection of middle and distal clinical T13N03M0 esophageal cancers from 2010 to 2012. Perioperative outcomes and 3-year survival were compared between propensity-matched groups of patients with esophageal cancer who underwent minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) or open esophagectomy (OE). A subgroup analysis was performed to evaluate the impact of using robotic-assisted operations as part of the minimally invasive approach. RESULTS: Among 4,266 patients included, 1,308 (30.6%) underwent MIE. It was more likely to be used in patients treated at academic (adjusted odds ratio [OR], 10.1; 95% confidence interval [CI], 4.2-33.1) or comprehensive cancer facilities (adjusted OR, 6.4; 95% CI, 2.6-21.1). Compared with propensity-matched patients who underwent OE, patients who underwent MIE had significantly more lymph nodes examined (15 versus 13; p = 0.016) and shorter hospital lengths of stay (10 days versus 11 days; p = 0.046) but similar resection margin positivity, readmission, and 30-day mortality (all p > 0.05). Survival was similar between the matched groups at 3 years for both adenocarcinoma and squamous cell carcinoma (p > 0.05). Compared with MIE without robotic assistance, use of a robotic approach was not associated with any significant differences in perioperative outcomes (p > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: The use of minimally invasive techniques to perform esophagectomy for esophageal cancer is associated with modestly improved perioperative outcomes without compromising survival.

The preventive surgical site infection bundle in colorectal surgery: an effective approach to surgical site infection reduction and health care cost savings.

IMPORTANCE: Surgical site infections (SSIs) in colorectal surgery are associated with increased morbidity and health care costs. OBJECTIVE: To determine the effect of a preventive SSI bundle (hereafter bundle) on SSI rates and costs in colorectal surgery. DESIGN: Retrospective study of institutional clinical and cost data. The study period was January 1, 2008, to December 31, 2012, and outcomes were assessed and compared before and after implementation of the bundle on July 1, 2011. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Academic tertiary referral center among 559 patients who underwent major elective colorectal surgery. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The primary outcome was the rate of superficial SSIs before and after implementation of the bundle. Secondary outcomes included deep SSIs, organ-space SSIs, wound disruption, postoperative sepsis, length of stay, 30-day readmission, and variable direct costs of the index admission. RESULTS: Of 559 patients in the study, 346 (61.9%) and 213 (38.1%) underwent their operation before and after implementation of the bundle, respectively. Groups were matched on their propensity to be treated with the bundle to account for significant differences in the preimplementation and postimplementation characteristics. Comparison of the matched groups revealed that implementation of the bundle was associated with reduced superficial SSIs (19.3% vs 5.7%, P < .001) and postoperative sepsis (8.5% vs 2.4%, P = .009). No significant difference was observed in deep SSIs, organ-space SSIs, wound disruption, length of stay, 30-day readmission, or variable direct costs between the matched groups. However, in a subgroup analysis of the postbundle period, superficial SSI occurrence was associated with a 35.5% increase in variable direct costs ($13,253 vs $9779, P = .001) and a 71.7% increase in length of stay (7.9 vs 4.6 days, P < .001). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: The preventive SSI bundle was associated with a substantial reduction in SSIs after colorectal surgery. The increased costs associated with SSIs support that the bundle represents an effective approach to reduce health care costs.