Neoadjuvant Therapy for Duodenal and Ampullary Adenocarcinoma: A Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: The role of systemic therapy in the management of ampullary (AA) and duodenal adenocarcinoma (DA) remains poorly understood. This study sought to synthesize current evidence supporting the use of neoadjuvant therapy (NAT) in AA and DA. METHODS: The study searched PubMed, Cochrane Library (Wiley), Embase (Elsevier), CINAHL (EBSCO), and ClinicalTrials.gov databases for observational or randomized studies published between 2002 and 2022 evaluating survival outcomes for patients with non-metastatic AA or DA who received systemic therapy and surgical resection. The data extracted included overall survival, progression-free survival, and pathologic response (PR) rate. RESULTS: From the 347 abstracts identified in this study, 29 reports were reviewed in full, and 15 were included in the final review. The selected studies published from 2007 to 2022 were retrospective. Eight were single-center studies; five used the National Cancer Database (NCDB); and two were European multicenter/national studies. Overall, no studies identified survival differences between NAT and upfront surgery (with or without adjuvant therapy). Two NCDB studies reported longer survival with NAT/AT than with surgery. Five single-center studies reported a significant portion of NAT patients who achieved PR, and one study identified major PR as an independent predictor of survival. Other outcomes associated with NAT included conversion from unresectable to resectable disease, reduced lymph node positivity, and decreased local recurrence rate. CONCLUSION: Evidence supporting the use of NAT in AA and DA is weak. No randomized studies exist, and observational data show mixed results. For patients with DA and AA, NAT appears safe, but better evidence is needed to understand the preferred multidisciplinary management of DA and AA periampullary malignancies.

Open Payments Data Analysis of General and Fellowship-trained Surgeons Receiving Industry General Payments From 2016 to 2020: Payment Disparities and COVID-19 Pandemic Impact.

OBJECTIVE: To characterize industry nonresearch payments made to general and fellowship-trained surgeons between 2016 and 2020. BACKGROUND: The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Open Payments Data (OPD) reports industry payments made to physicians related to drugs and medical devices. General payments are those not associated with research. METHODS: OPD data were queried for general and fellowship-trained surgeons who received general payments from 2016 to 2020. Payments' nature, amount, company, covered product, and location were collected. Surgeons' demographics, subspecialty, and leadership roles in hospitals, societies, and editorial boards were evaluated. RESULTS: From 2016 to 2020, 44,700 general and fellowship-trained surgeons were paid $535,425,543 in 1,440,850 general payments. The median payment was $29.18. The most frequent payments were for food and beverage (76.6%) and travel and lodging (15.6%); however, the highest dollar payments were for consulting fees ($93,128,401; 17.4%), education ($88,404,531; 16.5%), royalty or license ($87,471,238; 16.3%), and travel and lodging ($66,333,149; 12.4%). Five companies made half of all payments ($265,654,522; 49.6%): Intuitive Surgical ($128,517,411; 24%), Boston Scientific ($48,094,570; 9%), Edwards Lifesciences ($41,835,544, 7.8%), Medtronic Vascular ($33,607,136; 6.3%), and W. L. Gore & Associates ($16,626,371; 3.1%). Medical devices comprised 74.7% of payments ($399,897,217), followed by drugs and biologicals ($33,945,300; 6.3%). Texas, California, Florida, New York, and Pennsylvania received the most payments; however, the top dollar payments were in California ($65,702,579; 12.3%), Michigan ($52,990,904, 9.9%), Texas ($39,362,131; 7.4%), Maryland ($37,611,959; 7%), and Florida ($33,417,093, 6.2%). General surgery received the highest total payments ($245,031,174; 45.8%), followed by thoracic surgery ($167,806,514; 31.3%) and vascular surgery ($60,781,266; 11.4%). A total of 10,361 surgeons were paid >$5000, of which 1614 were women (15.6%); in this group, men received higher payments than women (means, $53,446 vs $22,571; P <0.001) and thoracic surgeons received highest payments (mean, $76,381; NS, P =0.14). A total of 120 surgeons were paid >$500,000 ($203,011,672; 38%)-5 non-Hispanic White (NHW) women (4.2%) and 82 NHW (68.3%), 24 Asian (20%), 7 Hispanic (5.8%), and 2 Black (1.7%) men; in this group, men received higher payments than women (means, $1,735,570 vs $684,224), and NHW men received payments double those of other men (means, $2,049,554 vs $955,368; NS, P =0.087). Among these 120 highly paid surgeons (>$500,000), 55 held hospital and departmental leadership roles, 30 were leaders in surgical societies, 27 authored clinical guidelines, and 16 served on journal editorial boards. During COVID-19, 2020 experienced half the number of payments than the preceding 3 years. CONCLUSIONS: General and fellowship-trained surgeons received substantial industry nonresearch payments. The highest-paid recipients were men. Further work is warranted in assessing how race, gender, and leadership roles influence the nature of industry payments and surgical practice. A significant decline in payments was observed early during the COVID-19 pandemic.