Surgical Approach does not Affect Return to Intended Oncologic Therapy Following Pancreaticoduodenectomy for Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma: A Propensity-Matched Study.

BACKGROUND: The effect of minimally invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy (MIPD), including laparoscopic and robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPD and RPD, respectively), on compliance and time to return to intended oncologic therapy (RIOT) for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) remains unknown. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with nonmetastatic PDAC were analyzed in the National Cancer Database (NCDB). Three groups were matched per propensity score: open pancreaticoduodenectomy (OPD) and MIPD, LPD and RPD, and converted and nonconverted patients. RIOT rates and time to RIOT were examined. RESULTS: A total of 14,135 patients were included: 11,834 (83.7%) underwent OPD and 2301 (16.3%) underwent MIPD. After score matching, RIOT rates (67.2 vs. 65.3%; p = 0.112) and RIOT within 8 weeks (57.7 vs. 56.4%; p = 0.276) were similar among MIPD and OPD groups, and approach was not a significant predictor of RIOT on multivariable regression. Neither RIOT nor time to RIOT were different among LPD and RPD groups (63.9 vs. 67.0%, and 58.4 vs. 56.9%, respectively). Compared with LPD, RPD was associated with lower conversion rates (HR 0.519; p < 0.001), and conversion was associated with longer median time to RIOT (10 vs. 8 weeks; p = 0.041). CONCLUSION: In this national cohort, approach did not impact RIOT rates or time to RIOT for patients with PDAC. While conversion was associated with longer median time to RIOT, readiness to commence adjuvant therapy was similar for LPD and RPD.

Adjuvant chemotherapy after neoadjuvant chemoradiation and proctectomy improves survival irrespective of pathologic response in rectal adenocarcinoma: a population-based cohort study.

BACKGROUND: This study sought to determine whether adjuvant chemotherapy (AC) compared to no AC (noAC) after neoadjuvant chemoradiation (CRT) and resection for rectal adenocarcinoma prolongs survival. Current guidelines from expert groups are conflicting, and data to support administering AC to patients who received neoadjuvant CRT are lacking. METHODS: A total of 19,867 patients met inclusion/exclusion criteria. Mean age was 58.6 ± 12.0 years, and 12,396 (62.4%) were males. Complete response (CR) was documented in 3801 (19.1%) patients and 8167 (41.1%) received AC. The cohort was stratified into pathological complete (pCR, N = 3801) and incomplete (pIR, N = 16,066) subgroups, and pIR further subcategorized into ypN0 (N = 10,191) and ypN + (N = 5875) subgroups. After propensity score matching, AC was associated with improved OS in the pCR subgroups (mean 139.1 ± 1.9 vs. 134.0 ± 2.2 months; p < 0.001), in pIR ypN0 subgroup (141.6 ± 1.5 vs. 129.9 ± 1.2 months, p < 0.001), and in pIR ypN + subgroup (155.9 ± 5.4 vs. 126.5 ± 7.6 months; p < 0.001). RESULTS: AC was associated with improved OS in patients who received neoadjuvant CRT followed by proctectomy for clinical stages II and III rectal adenocarcinoma. This effect persisted irrespective of pathological response status. CONCLUSIONS: AC following neoadjuvant CRT and surgery is associated with improved OS in patients with rectal adenocarcinoma. These findings warrant adoption of AC after neoadjuvant CRT and surgery for clinical stage II and III rectal adenocarcinoma.

Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy for Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma is Associated with Lower Post-Pancreatectomy Readmission Rates: A Population-Based Cohort Study.

INTRODUCTION: Despite neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) being increasingly utilized and possibly associated with improved oncological outcomes, the impact of NAC on textbook outcomes following pancreatectomy for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) remains debated. METHODS: A retrospective review of the National Cancer Database of patients undergoing resection of non-metastatic PDAC from 2004 to 2016 was performed. Propensity score matching was used to account for treatment selection bias in patients with and without NAC (noNAC). A multivariable binary logistic regression model was used to analyze the association of NAC with length of stay (LOS), 30-day readmission, and 30- and 90-day mortality. RESULTS: Of 7975 (11%) NAC patients and 65,338 (89%) noNAC patients, 2911 NAC and 2911 noNAC patients remained in the cohort after matching. Clinicopathologic and demographic variables were well-balanced after matching. After matching, NAC was associated with significantly lower rates of 30-day readmission (5.5% vs. 7.4%; p = 0.006), which remained after multivariable adjustment (odds ratio [OR] 0.74, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.60-0.92; p = 0.006). There were no significant differences in LOS and 30- and 90-day mortality in patients receiving NAC and noNAC. Stratified analyses by surgery type (i.e. pancreaticoduodenectomy [PD] and distal pancreatectomy [DP]) demonstrated consistent results. CONCLUSION: Receipt of NAC in PDAC patients undergoing DP or PD is associated with lower readmission rates and does not otherwise compromise short-term outcomes. These data reaffirm the safety of strategies incorporating NAC and is important to consider when devising policies aimed at quality improvement in achieving textbook outcomes.

Impact of Enhanced Recovery After Surgery on Postoperative Outcomes for Patients Undergoing Cytoreductive Surgery and Hyperthermic Intraperitoneal Chemotherapy.

BACKGROUND: Cytoreductive surgery (CRS) and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) have been associated with significant morbidity and increased hospital length of stay (LOS). The authors report their experience after implementation of an enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) program for CRS-HIPEC. METHODS: Outcomes were analyzed before and after ERAS implementation. The components of ERAS included preoperative carbohydrate loading, goal-directed fluid management, multimodal pain management, minimization of narcotic use, avoidance of nasogastric tubes, and early mobilization and feeding. RESULTS: Of 168 procedures, 88 (52%) were in the pre-ERAS group and 80 (48%) were in the post-ERAS group. The two groups did not differ in terms of age, sex, comorbidities, peritoneal carcinomatosis index scores, completeness of cytoreduction, or operative time. The ERAS patients received fewer fluids intraoperatively (mean, 4.2 vs 6.4 L; p < 0.01). The mean LOS was 7.9 days post-ERAS compared with 10.0 days pre-ERAS (p = 0.015). Clavien-Dindo complications classified as grade ≥ 3 were lower after ERAS (23.7% vs 38.6%; p = 0.04). Moreover, the readmission rates remained the same (16.2% vs 13.6%; p = 0.635). CONCLUSIONS: Implementation of an ERAS program for patients undergoing CRS-HIPEC is feasible and not associated with an increase in overall major complications or readmissions. These data support incorporation of ERAS protocols for CRS-HIPEC procedures.

Local Endoscopic Resection is Inferior to Gastrectomy for Early Clinical Stage T1a and T1b Gastric Adenocarcinoma: A Propensity-Matched Study.

BACKGROUND: The role of endoscopic resection (ER) in the management of subsets of clinical T1N0 gastric adenocarcinoma remains controversial. The aim of this study was to evaluate the outcome of ER versus gastrectomy in node-negative cT1a and cT1b gastric adenocarcinoma. METHODS: Data from the National Cancer Database (2010-2015) were used to identify patients with clinical T1aN0 (n = 2927; ER: n = 1157, gastrectomy: n = 1770) and T1bN0 (n = 2915; ER: n = 474, gastrectomy: n = 2441) gastric adenocarcinoma. Propensity score matching and Cox multivariable analyses were used to account for treatment selection bias. RESULTS: ER for cT1a and cT1b cancers was performed more frequently over time. The rates of node-positive disease in patients with cT1a and cT1b gastric adenocarcinoma were 5% and 18%, respectively. In the matched cohort, gastrectomy was associated with increased survival compared with ER for cT1a cancers (hazard ratio [HR] 0.79, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.66-0.95; p = 0.013), and corresponding 5-year survival for gastrectomy and ER was 72% and 66%, respectively (p = 0.013). For cT1b cancers, gastrectomy had a significantly longer survival compared with ER (HR 0.77, 95% CI 0.63-0.93; p = 0.008), and the corresponding 5-year survival for gastrectomy and ER was 60% and 50%, respectively (p = 0.013). CONCLUSION: This study demonstrates ER is inferior in terms of long-term survival for clinical T1aN0 and T1bN0 gastric adenocarcinoma, despite current recommendations for ER in cT1 gastric cancers. Future research should seek to identify the subset of T1a and T1b cancers at low risk of nodal metastasis, and would thus maximally benefit from ER.

Adjuvant Chemotherapy Associated with Survival Benefit Following Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy and Pancreatectomy for Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma: A Population-Based Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: Data supporting the routine use of adjuvant chemotherapy (AC) compared with no AC (noAC) following neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) and resection for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) are lacking. This study aimed to determine whether AC improves long-term survival in patients receiving NAC and resection. METHODS: Patients receiving resection for PDAC following NAC from 2004 to 2016 were identified from the National Cancer Data Base (NCDB). Patients with a survival rate of < 6 months were excluded to account for immortal time bias. Propensity score matching (PSM) and Cox regression analysis were performed to account for selection bias and analyze the impact of AC on overall survival. RESULTS: Of 4449 (68%) noAC patients and 2111 (32%) AC patients, 2016 noAC patients and 2016 AC patients remained after PSM. After matching, AC was associated with improved survival (median 29.4 vs. 24.9 months; p < 0.001), which remained after multivariable adjustment (HR 0.81, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.75-0.88; p < 0.001). On multivariable interaction analyses, this benefit persisted irrespective of nodal status: N0 (hazard ratio [HR] 0.80, 95% CI 0.72-0.90; p < 0.001), N1 (HR 0.76, 95% CI 0.67-0.86; p < 0.001), R0 margin status (HR 0.82, 95% CI 0.75-0.89; p < 0.001), R1 margin status (HR 0.77, 95% CI 0.64-0.93; p = 0.007), no neoadjuvant radiotherapy (NART; HR 0.84, 95% CI 0.74-0.96; p = 0.009), and use of NART (HR 0.80, 95% CI 0.73-0.88; p < 0.001). Stratified analysis by nodal, margin, and NART status demonstrated consistent results. CONCLUSION: AC following NAC and resection is associated with improved survival, even in margin-negative and node-negative disease. These findings suggest completing planned systemic treatment should be considered in all resected PDACs previously treated with NAC.

Outcomes of Open Versus Minimally Invasive Ivor-Lewis Esophagectomy for Cancer: A Propensity-Score Matched Analysis of NSQIP Database.

INTRODUCTION: We conducted this analysis to compare the outcomes of open transthoracic esophagectomy (OTTE) and minimally invasive transthoracic esophagectomy (MITTE) when performed for oncologic indications. METHODS: The NSQIP esophagectomy-targeted database during 2-year period was used. Only patients who underwent elective TTE for oncologic indications were included. Patients were matched per a propensity score for the likelihood of receiving OTTE versus MITTE. RESULTS: Overall, 2098 esophagectomies were reported; 576 met the inclusion criteria. A total of 161 purely OTTE patients were matched 1:1 with patients who received purely MITTE. OTTE was associated with higher reported rates of abdominal and mediastinal lymphadenectomies (LAD) (26.7% vs. 3.1% and 38.5% vs. 16.1%, respectively; p < 0.001) and had shorter mean operative time (329 vs. 414 min; p < 0.001). However, OTTE patients had higher rates of wound infection (7.5% vs. 1.9%), longer median hospitalization (10 vs. 8 days), more non-home discharges (18.0 vs. 8.1%), and a tendency toward higher rates of postoperative transfusion (13.0% vs. 6.8%; p = 0.092). The overall complications rate was higher in OTTE (46.0% vs. 33.5%; p = 0.028). No difference was noted in the rates of anastomotic leak, negative margins, reoperation, readmission, or mortality. Laparoscopic versus robotic approaches were uniformly comparable, except for higher rates of reported abdominal LAD in laparoscopic and higher rates of reported mediastinal LAD in robotic approach. CONCLUSIONS: MITTE is comparable to OTTE for oncologic indications in immediate postoperative outcomes. A concern is raised regarding the oncologic outcome given the lower reported rates of lymphadenectomies. Comparison of long-term outcomes is essential to address this concern.

Feasibility of hand-assisted laparoscopic cytoreductive surgery and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy for peritoneal surface malignancy.

BACKGROUND: In light of the modern surgical trend towards minimally invasive surgery, we aim to assess the feasibility of hand-assisted laparoscopic (HAL) cytoreductive surgery (CRS) and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) in peritoneal surface malignancy (PSM). METHODS: Patients with PSM secondary to colorectal cancer or pseudomyxoma peritonei with peritoneal cancer index (PCI) of ≤ 10 were considered for HAL CRS and HIPEC. One patient had PCI of 15 but based on the disease distribution laparoscopic-assisted CRS and HIPEC was thought to be feasible, thus was also included. These patients were compared to matched controls who underwent open CRS and HIPEC for similar pathologies. Matching was performed on age and PCI to reflect a comparable complexity of the operation, and tumor grade for comparable risk of disease recurrence. RESULTS: Eleven patients were included in each group. In both groups, mean PCI was 4.1, mean age was 58.5 years, and 81.8% were well-moderately differentiated tumors. Complete cytoreduction was achieved in all patients. Upon comparison, HAL patients had significantly less blood loss and 3-day shorter hospitalization. No difference was demonstrated in operative time, number of visceral resections, and rate of omentectomy/peritonectomy. Also, no difference was detected in morbidities and 30-day readmission rates. No intraperitoneal recurrences have been reported in the HAL group after a median follow-up of 11 months. CONCLUSION: HAL CRS and HIPEC is a feasible procedure and can be considered for PSM with low PCI. It offers very acceptable and comparable short-term outcomes to the conventional open approach.

Knowledge, attitudes and practice of surgeons regarding nutritional support in CRS and HIPEC patients: Are we missing something?

Nutrition's impact on the surgical outcome has been established in various surgical specialties. However, data addressing the nutritional aspect following surgery for peritoneal surface malignancies are considered scarce. We aim to evaluate the knowledge, attitudes, and practice of surgeons regarding their nutritional support for patients undergoing cytoreductive surgery and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (CRS and HIPEC) via a survey directed to self-evaluate nutritional knowledge, screening, and practice toward patients. The survey was submitted to the attendees of the International Regional Cancer Therapies Symposium. The response rate was 37% (56/151). Most surgeons estimated their knowledge and malnutrition screening skills in CRS and HIPEC to be 'adequate' or better. Only 35.19% reported the availability of nutritional screening and assessment tools for CRS and HIPEC patients. 86.5% of participants stated that their CRS and HIPEC patients have access to a dietitian on inpatient and outpatient basis. However, only 32.69% reported to 'always' consult a dietitian. Otherwise, the involvement of a nutrition specialist is considered on variable basis. Despite the consensus on the importance of nutrition in HIPEC patients, there appears to be a profound underutilization of nutrition specialists in the patients' management, which may have had in impact on their surgical outcome.

Evaluation of cytoreductive surgery and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy in a community setting: A cost-utility analysis of a hospital's initial experience and reflections on the health care system.

BACKGROUND: The combination of Cytoreductive Surgery (CRS) plus Hyperthermic Intraperitoneal Chemotherapy (HIPEC) has been gaining a considerable interest by surgeons throughout the United States due to the significant survival improvement it provides for peritoneal surface malignancies and the ability to reproduce comparable clinical results in numerous health care centers. However, CRS plus HIPEC has not been sufficiently investigated from the economic standpoint in the United States where a wide variety of health care insurers exists. This study was conducted to analyze hospital/surgeon cost and reimbursement data at a community hospital offering a new peritoneal surface malignancy program, and expand the discussion to analyze future healthcare implementation on this procedure in the United States. METHODS: This is a retrospective economic analysis of an initial CRS plus HIPEC experience at a community non-teaching medical center. This study was conducted using hospital/surgeon cost and reimbursement based on the Office of Finance data at Edward Hospital Cancer Center (Naperville, IL). All patients who underwent CRS and HIPEC between June 2013 and August 2014 were included in this analysis. We aimed to assess CRS plus HIPEC purely from the financial perspective on the initial admission regardless of the patients' advancement of the disease or postoperative adverse events. RESULTS: Twenty-five patients underwent 26 CRS plus HIPEC procedures. Twelve patients had private insurance plans (PRV) whereas 13 were covered by public insurers (PUB). Median overall length of stay (LOS) was 10 days (PRV 10 days vs. PUB 11 days; P = 0.76.) Average hospital cost was $38,369 (PRV $37,093 vs. PUB $39,463; P = 0.67), and average reimbursement for our patient population was $45,243 (PRV $48,954 vs. PUB $42,062; P = 0.53). It was noted that CRS plus HIPEC generated more net profit in patients with private insurance than in those with public plans, however, not statistically significant ($11,861 vs. $2,599 per patient, respectively; P = 0.38). Evaluating surgeon's data, average surgeon's charge was $29,139 (PRV $28,440 vs. PUB $29,737; P = 0.80), and average patients' payment was $8,126 (PRV 9,234 vs. PUB 7,176; P = 0.47). CONCLUSION: CRS plus HIPEC is profitable in the community setting for both the hospital and surgeon. Both private and public insurers reimbursed profitably, though with a greater profit margin from private insurers. As CRS plus HIPEC is becoming more widely recognized as a standard of care for patients with peritoneal surface malignancy, it is increasingly important to understand and report its associated costs and variability in insurance coverage, especially in light of the current healthcare structure changes in the United States. It is strongly encouraged to report and present a wider scope of CRS plus HIPEC economic experiences in a variety of hospital settings to provide further evidence for future healthcare implementations in the United States. J. Surg. Oncol. 2016;113:544-547. © 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Cytoreductive surgery and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy for the treatment of peritoneal sarcomatosis.

BACKGROUND: The prognosis of peritoneal sarcomatosis is generally poor and conventional treatments for this disease process are mostly ineffective. The use of cytoreductive surgery (CRS) with hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) as an aggressive locoregional treatment option remains controversial. METHODS: We reviewed 13 patients with peritoneal sarcomatosis who underwent CRS and closed-abdomen HIPEC with cisplatin and doxorubicin between March 2007 and March 2010. None of the patients was diagnosed with GIST or uterine leiomyosarcoma. Both disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) were evaluated. Completeness of cytoreduction (CC) and peritoneal cancer index (PCI) were assessed. RESULTS: There was no operative mortality. Median follow-up was 12 (range, 4­43) months. Peritoneal disease progression occurred in six patients, distant metastases alone in none, and both in two patients. Median DFS and OS were 11 and 12 months, respectively. Completeness of cytoreduction significantly affected survival. Mean DFS and OS in those patients where a CC-0 was achieved was 27.25 ± 5.71 (median, 20) months and 35.25 ± 4.75 months (median, not reached). In contrast, patients with gross residual disease (CC ≥ 1) had a DFS of 4.25 ± 1.43 months (median, 4 months; P = 0.03) and an OS of 5.25 ± 2.36 months (median, 4 months; P = 0.02). In addition, PCI influenced survival when evaluated by univariate analysis. Using multivariate analysis, completeness of cytoreduction was the only covariate influencing overall survival (P = 0.012). CONCLUSIONS: A complete cytoreduction and low PCI score appear to be important factors in considering CRS and HIPEC for patients with peritoneal sarcomatosis.

Assessment of Textbook Oncologic Outcomes Following Proctectomy for Rectal Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Outcomes of rectal adenocarcinoma vary considerably. Composite "textbook oncologic outcome" (TOO) is a single metric that estimates optimal clinical performance for cancer surgery. METHODS: Patients with stage II/III rectal adenocarcinoma who underwent single-agent neoadjuvant chemoradiation and proctectomy within 5-12 weeks were identified in the National Cancer Database (NCDB). TOO was defined as achievement of negative distal and circumferential resection margin (CRM), retrieval of ≥ 12 nodes, no 90-day mortality, and length of stay (LOS) < 75th percentile of corresponding year's range. Multivariable logistic regression was used to identify predictors of TOO. RESULTS: Among 318,225 patients, 8869 met selection criteria. Median age was 62 years (IQR 54-71), and 5550 (62.6%) were males. Low anterior resection was the most common procedure (LAR, 6,037 (68.1%) and 3084 (34.8%) were treated at a high-volume center (≥ 20 rectal resections/year). TOO was achieved in 3967 patients (44.7%). Several components of TOO were achieved commonly, including negative CRM (87.4%), no 90-day mortality (98.0%), no readmission (93.0%), and no prolonged hospitalization (78.8%). Logistic regression identified increasing age, non-private insurance, low-volume centers, open approach, Black race, Charlson score ≥ 3, and abdominoperineal resection (APR) as predictors of failure to achieve TOO. Over time, TOOs were attained more commonly which correlated with increased minimally invasive surgery (MIS) adoption. TOO achievement was associated with improved survival. CONCLUSIONS: Rectal adenocarcinoma patients achieve TOO uncommonly. Treatment at high-volume centers and MIS approach were among modifiable factors associated with TOO in this study.

Tissue Diagnosis Is Associated With Worse Survival in Hepatocellular Carcinoma: A National Cancer Database Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Biopsy to achieve tissue diagnosis (TD) of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) risks needle tract seeding. With chest wall and peritoneal recurrences reported, TD could worsen cancer outcomes. We investigated HCC outcomes after TD compared to clinical diagnosis (CD), hypothesizing that TD adversely affects overall survival (OS). METHODS: The National Cancer Database (NCDB) Participant User File for liver cancer was reviewed, including patients with nonmetastatic HCC treated with major hepatectomy or transplantation. Clinical diagnosis patients were matched 1:1 to TD patients per propensity score. Survival was examined in the unmatched and matched cohorts. RESULTS: Of 172 283 cases, 16 366 met inclusion criteria. Mean age was 60.8 years, 12 100 (73.9%) were male, and 48.4% of patients received hepatectomies. Clinical diagnosis occurred in 70.4% of cases, and 29.6% underwent TD. Cox regression confirmed the diagnostic method as an independent predictor of OS in addition to age, Charlson-Deyo score, grade, delay of surgery, lymphovascular invasion, nodal stage, and procedure type, favoring transplantation over hepatectomy. After propensity matching on these factors, 4251 patients were matched from each group. In the matched cohort, patients with TD had a significantly lower OS than patients with CD (median: 65.5 vs. 85.6 ± 2.7 months, P < .001). The corresponding 5-year survival was lower in the TD group (47.6% vs. 60.9% P < .001). CONCLUSION: Hepatocellular carcinoma patients with preoperative TD had decreased OS compared to CD, which persisted after propensity matching. This study supports avoiding biopsy for HCC whenever possible.

Survival benefit of adjuvant chemotherapy following neoadjuvant therapy and oesophagectomy in oesophageal adenocarcinoma.

BACKGROUND: The evidence assessing the additional benefits of adjuvant chemotherapy (AC) following neoadjuvant therapy (NAT; i.e. chemotherapy or chemoradiotherapy) and oesophagectomy for oesophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC) are limited. This study aimed to determine whether AC improves long-term survival in patients receiving NAT and oesophagectomy. METHODS: Patients receiving oesophagectomy for EAC following NAT from 2004 to 2016 were identified from the National Cancer Data Base (NCDB). To account for immortality bias, patients with survival ≤3 months were excluded to account for immortality bias. Propensity score matching (PSM) and Cox regression was performed to account for selection bias and analyze impact of AC on overall survival. RESULTS: Overall, 12,972 (91%) did not receive AC and 1,255 (9%) received AC. After PSM there were 2,485 who did not receive AC and 1,254 who did. After matching, AC was associated with improved survival (median: 38.5 vs 32.3 months, p < 0.001), which remained after multivariable adjustment (HR: 0.78, CI95%: 0.71-0.87). On multivariable interaction analyses, this benefit persisted in subgroup analysis for nodal status: N0 (HR: 0.85, CI95%: 0.69-0.96), N1 (HR: 0.66, CI95%: 0.56-0.78), N2/3 (HR: 0.80, CI95%: 0.66-0.97) and margin status: R0 (HR: 0.77, CI95%: 0.69-0.86), R1 (HR: 0.60, CI95%: 0.43-0.85). Further, patients with stable disease following NAT (HR: 0.60, CI95%: 0.59-0.80) or downstaged (HR: 0.80, CI95%: 0.68-0.95) disease had significant survival benefit after AC, but not patients with upstaged disease. CONCLUSION: AC following NAT and oesophagectomy is associated with improved survival, even in node-negative and margin-negative disease. NAT response may be crucial in identifying patients who will benefit maximally from AC, and thus future research should be focused on identifying molecular phenotype of tumours that respond to chemotherapy to improve outcomes.

Adjuvant radiotherapy improves long-term survival after resection for gallbladder cancer A population-based cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Data supporting routine use of adjuvant radiotherapy (RT) compared to without RT (noRT) for gallbladder cancer (GBC) is unclear. This study aimed to determine whether RT improves long-term survival following resection for GBC. METHODS: Patients receiving resection for GBC followed by RT from 2004 to 2016 were identified from the National Cancer Database (NCDB). Patients with survival <6 months were excluded to account for immortal time bias. Propensity score matching (PSM) and Cox regression was performed to account for selection bias and analyze impact of RT on overall survival. RESULTS: Of 7514 (77%) noRT and 2261 (23%) RT, 2067 noRT and 2067 RT patients remained after PSM. After matching, RT was associated with improved survival (median: 26.2 vs 21.5 months, p < 0.001), which remained after multivariable adjustment (HR: 0.82, CI95%: 0.76-0.89, p < 0.001). On multivariable interaction analyses, this benefit persisted irrespective of nodal status: N0 (HR: 0.84, CI95%: 0.77-0.93), N1 (HR: 0.77, CI95%: 0.68-0.88), N2/N3 (HR: 0.56, CI95%: 0.35-0.91), margin status: R0 (HR: 0.85, CI95%: 0.78-0.93), R1 (HR: 0.78, CI95%: 0.68-0.88) and use of adjuvant chemotherapy (AC) (HR: 0.67, CI95%: 0.57-0.79). Benefit with RT were also seen in patients with T2 - T4 disease and in patients undergoing simple and extended cholecystectomy. CONCLUSION: RT following resection was associated with improved survival in this study, even in margin-negative and node-negative disease. These findings may suggest addition of RT into multimodality therapy for GBC.

Adjuvant chemotherapy for perihilar cholangiocarcinoma: A population-based comparative cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Data supporting routine use of adjuvant chemotherapy (AC) compared to no AC (noAC) for perihilar cholangiocarcinoma (hCCA) is unclear. This study aimed to determine whether AC improves long-term survival following resection for hCCA. METHODS: Patients receiving resection for hCCA followed by AC or no AC from 2010 to 2016 were identified from the National Cancer Database (NCDB). Propensity score matching (PSM) and Cox regression was performed to account for selection bias and analyze impact of AC on overall survival. RESULTS: Of 924 (56%) noAC and 719 (44%) AC, 320 noAC and 320 AC patients remained after PSM. After matching, AC was associated with improved survival (median: 28.2 vs 19.9 months, p < 0.001), which remained after multivariable adjustment (HR: 0.61, CI95%: 0.50-0.75, p < 0.001). On multivariable interaction analyses, the benefit of AC over no AC persisted irrespective of nodal status: N0 (HR: 0.62, CI95%: 0.41-0.92, p = 0.019), N1 (HR: 0.52, CI95%: 0.36-0.75, p = 0.001), N2 (HR: 0.31, CI95%: 0.11-0.90, p = 0.032), Nx (HR: 0.22, CI95%: 0.09-0.55, p = 0.001) and margin status: R0 (HR: 0.74, CI95%: 0.57-0.97, p = 0.026), R1 (HR: 0.31, CI95%: 0.21-0.47, p < 0.001). Stratified analysis by nodal, margin and AC status demonstrated consistent results. CONCLUSION: AC following resection for hCCA was associated with improved survival in this study, even in margin-negative and node-negative disease. These findings suggest incorporation of AC into multimodality therapy for hCCA in all cases, where appropriate.