Adjuvant Radiotherapy for Surgically Resected Stage III Merkel Cell Carcinoma.

This case-control study evaluates whether adjuvant radiotherapy is associated with overall survival among patients with surgically resected stage III Merkel cell carcinoma.

Identification of Populations at Risk for "Choosing Un-Wisely": A SEER Population-Based Study.

BACKGROUND: Since 2016, the Choosing Wisely campaign has recommended against routine axillary surgery in elderly patients with early stage, hormone receptor positive (ER+) breast cancer. The objective was to evaluate factors associated with axillary surgery in breast cancer patients meeting criteria for sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) omission and identify potential disparities. METHODS: Female patients age ≥70 years with cT1-2N0M0, ER+, HER2-negative breast cancer diagnosed after publication of the Choosing Wisely recommendations, between 2016 and 2019, were identified from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database. Patient demographics and tumor characteristics associated with axillary surgery were analyzed. RESULTS: Of the 31 756 patients meeting omission criteria, 25 771 (81.2%) underwent axillary surgery. Hispanic ethnicity, median household income between $35,000 and $70,000, treatment in rural areas, poor differentiation, lobular and mixed lobular with ductal histology, T2 tumors, radiation therapy, and systemic therapy were factors associated with receiving axillary surgery on multivariable analysis. In the axillary surgery cohort, a median of 2 (IQR = 2) nodes were examined and 529 (2.1%) patients were found to have 1 or more positive lymph nodes. DISCUSSION: Among elderly patients meeting Choosing Wisely criteria for SLNB omission, particular racial, ethnic, socioeconomic, and geographic populations may be at increased risk for potential over treatment. Identification of these factors provides specific opportunities for education and implementation of de-escalation of unnecessary procedures.

Operating Room Lockers and Gender Equity in the Surgical Workforce.

This study assesses gender parity in operating room locker room conditions.

Omission of Radiation in Conservative Treatment for Breast Cancer: Opportunity for De-escalation of Care.

INTRODUCTION: De-escalation of breast cancer treatment aims to reduce patient and financial toxicity without compromising outcomes. Level I evidence and National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines support omission of adjuvant radiation in patients aged >70 y with hormone-sensitive, pT1N0M0 invasive breast cancer treated with endocrine therapy. We evaluated radiation use in patients eligible for guideline concordant omission of radiation. METHODS: Subgroup analysis of patients eligible for radiation omission from two pooled randomized controlled trials, which included stage 0-III breast cancer patients undergoing breast conserving surgery, was performed to evaluate factors associated with radiation use. RESULTS: Of 631 patients, 47 (7.4%) met radiation omission criteria and were treated by 14 surgeons at eight institutions. The mean age was 75.3 (standard deviation + 4.4) y. Majority of patients identified as White (n = 46; 97.9%) and non-Hispanic (n = 44; 93.6%). The mean tumor size was 1.0 cm; 37 patients (88.1%) had ductal, 4 patients (9.5%) had lobular, and 17 patients (40.5%) had low-grade disease. Among patients eligible for radiation omission, 34 (72.3%) patients received adjuvant radiation. Those who received radiation were significantly younger than those who did not (74 y, interquartile range = 4 y, versus 78 y, interquartile range = 11 y, P = 0.03). There was no difference in radiation use based on size (P = 0.4), histology (P = 0.5), grade (P = 0.7), race (P = 1), ethnicity (P = 0.6), institution (P = 0.1), gender of the surgeon (P = 0.7), or surgeon (P = 0.1). CONCLUSIONS: Fewer than 10% of patients undergoing breast conservation met criteria for radiation omission. Nearly three-quarters received radiation therapy with younger age being a driver of radiation use, suggesting ample opportunity for de-escalation, particularly among younger eligible patients.

Are we choosing wisely? Drivers of preoperative MRI use in breast cancer patients.

INTRODUCTION: Factors contributing to the use of preoperative MRI remain poorly understood. METHODS: Data from a randomized controlled trial of stage 0-3 breast cancer patients undergoing breast conserving surgery between 2016 and 2018 were analyzed. RESULTS: Of the 396 patients in this trial, 32.6% had a preoperative MRI. Patient age, race, ethnicity, tumor histology, and use of neoadjuvant therapy were significant predictors of MRI use. On multivariate analysis, younger patients with invasive lobular tumors were more likely to have a preoperative MRI. Rates also varied significantly by individual surgeon (p < 0.001); in particular, female surgeons (39.9% vs. 24.0% for male surgeons, p = 0.001) and those in community practice (58.9% vs. 14.2% for academic, p < 0.001) were more likely to order preoperative MRI. Rates declined over the two years of the study, particularly among female surgeons. CONCLUSIONS: Preoperative MRI varies with patient age and tumor histology; however, there remains variability by individual surgeon.

Factors Affecting Time to Surgery in Breast Cancer Patients.

BACKGROUND: We sought to determine factors affecting time to surgery (TTS) to identify potential modifiable factors to improve timeliness of care. METHODS: Patients with clinical stage 0-3 breast cancer undergoing partial mastectomy in 2 clinical trials, conducted in ten centers across the US, were analyzed. No preoperative workup was mandated by the study; those receiving neoadjuvant therapy were excluded. RESULTS: The median TTS among the 583 patients in this cohort was 34 days (range: 1-289). Patient age, race, tumor palpability, and genomic subtype did not influence timeliness of care defined as TTS ≤30 days. Hispanic patients less likely to have a TTS ≤30 days (P = .001). There was significant variation in TTS by surgeon (P < .001); those practicing in an academic center more likely to have TTS ≤30 days than those in a community setting (55.1% vs 19.3%, P < .001). Patients who had a preoperative ultrasound had a similar TTS to those who did not (TTS ≤30 days 41.9% vs 51.9%, respectively, P = .109), but those who had a preoperative MRI had a significantly increased TTS (TTS ≤30 days 25.0% vs 50.9%, P < .001). On multivariate analysis, patient ethnicity was no longer significantly associated with TTS ≤30 (P = .150). Rather, use of MRI (OR: .438; 95% CI: .287-.668, P < .001) and community practice type (OR: .324; 95% CI: .194-.541, P < .001) remained independent predictors of lower likelihood of TTS ≤30 days. CONCLUSIONS: Preoperative MRI significantly increases time to surgery; surgeons should consider this in deciding on its use.

Factors Associated With General Surgery Residents' Operative Experience During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

Importance: The suspension of elective operations in March 2020 to prepare for the COVID-19 surge posed significant challenges to resident education. To mitigate the potential negative effects of COVID-19 on surgical education, it is important to quantify how the pandemic influenced resident operative volume. Objective: To examine the association of the pandemic with general surgical residents' operative experience by postgraduate year (PGY) and case type and to evaluate if certain institutional characteristics were associated with a greater decline in surgical volume. Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective review included residents' operative logs from 3 consecutive academic years (2017-2018, 2018-2019, and 2019-2020) from 16 general surgery programs. Data collected included total major cases, case type, and PGY. Faculty completed a survey about program demographics and COVID-19 response. Data on race were not collected. Operative volumes from March to June 2020 were compared with the same period during 2018 and 2019. Data were analyzed using Kruskal-Wallis test adjusted for within-program correlations. Main Outcome and Measures: Total major cases performed by each resident during the first 4 months of the pandemic. Results: A total of 1368 case logs were analyzed. There was a 33.5% reduction in total major cases performed in March to June 2020 compared with 2018 and 2019 (45.0 [95% CI, 36.1-53.9] vs 67.7 [95% CI, 62.0-72.2]; P < .001), which significantly affected every PGY. All case types were significantly reduced in 2020 except liver, pancreas, small intestine, and trauma cases. There was a 10.2% reduction in operative volume during the 2019-2020 academic year compared with the 2 previous years (192.3 [95% CI, 178.5-206.1] vs 213.8 [95% CI, 203.6-223.9]; P < .001). Level 1 trauma centers (49.5 vs 68.5; 27.7%) had a significantly lower reduction in case volume than non-level 1 trauma centers (33.9 vs 63.0; 46%) (P = .03). Conclusions and Relevance: In this study of operative logs of general surgery residents in 16 US programs from 2017 to 2020, the first 4 months of the COVID-19 pandemic was associated with a significant reduction in operative experience, which affected every PGY and most case types. Level 1 trauma centers were less affected than non-level 1 centers. If this trend continues, the effect on surgical training may be even more detrimental.

A multi-institutional study assessing general surgery faculty teaching evaluations.

BACKGROUND: Resident evaluation of faculty teaching is an important metric in general surgery training, however considerable variability in faculty teaching evaluation (FE) instruments exists. STUDY DESIGN: Twenty-two general surgery programs provided their FE and program demographics. Three clinical education experts performed blinded assessment of FEs, assessing adherence 2018 ACGME common program standards and if the FE was meaningful. RESULTS: Number of questions per FE ranged from 1 to 29. The expert assessments demonstrated that no evaluation addressed all 5 ACGME standards. There were significant differences in the FEs effectiveness of assessing the 5 ACGME standards (p < 0.001), with teaching abilities and professionalism rated the highest and scholarly activities the lowest. CONCLUSION: There was wide variation between programs regarding FEs development and adhered to ACGME standards. Faculty evaluation tools consistently built around all suggested ACGME standards may allow for a more accurate and useful assessment of faculty teaching abilities to target professional development.

Resection of Cavity Shave Margins in Stage 0-III Breast Cancer Patients Undergoing Breast Conserving Surgery: A Prospective Multicenter Randomized Controlled Trial.

OBJECTIVE: Single-center studies have demonstrated that resection of cavity shave margins (CSM) halves the rate of positive margins and re-excision in breast cancer patients undergoing partial mastectomy (PM). We sought to determine if these findings were externally generalizable across practice settings. METHODS: In this multicenter randomized controlled trial occurring in 9 centers across the United States, stage 0-III breast cancer patients undergoing PM were randomly assigned to either have resection of CSM ("shave" group) or not ("no shave" group). Randomization occurred intraoperatively, after the surgeon had completed their standard PM. Primary outcome measures were positive margin and re-excision rates. RESULTS: Between July 28, 2016 and April 13, 2018, 400 patients were enrolled in this trial. Four patients (2 in each arm) did not meet inclusion criteria after randomization, leaving 396 patients for analysis: 196 in the "shave" group and 200 to the "no shave" group. Median patient age was 65 years (range; 29-94). Groups were well matched at baseline for demographic and clinicopathologic factors. Prior to randomization, positive margin rates were similar in the "shave" and "no shave" groups (76/196 (38.8%) vs. 72/200 (36.0%), respectively, P = 0.604). After randomization, those in the "shave" group were significantly less likely than those in the "no shave" group to have positive margins (19/196 (9.7%) vs. 72/200 (36.0%), P < 0.001), and to require re-excision or mastectomy for margin clearance (17/196 (8.7%) vs. 47/200 (23.5%), P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Resection of CSM significantly reduces positive margin and re-excision rates in patients undergoing PM.

Investigating Association Between Sex and Faculty Teaching Evaluation in General Surgery Residency Programs: A Multi-Institutional Study.

BACKGROUND: In specialties with gender imbalance, such as general surgery, women faculty frequently receive lower teaching evaluation scores compared with men, which can affect academic advancement. STUDY DESIGN: We collected 1 year of anonymous resident-derived faculty teaching evaluations from 21 general surgery programs, along with resident, faculty, and department leadership gender complement. A composite evaluation score was calculated for each faculty. After accounting for within-program correlations, we compared male and female scores using the cluster-adjusted t-test to describe the respective mean differences with a 95% CI. Programs were divided into quartiles based on percent female faculty, female residents, and combined total females to detect associations between female representation and faculty teaching evaluation scores. RESULTS: The 21 programs yielded 20,187 teaching evaluations of 1,177 faculty. Women comprised 28% of the faculty, 47% of residents, 43% of program directors, and 19% of department chairs. Overall, women faculty had significantly higher evaluation scores than men (90.6% vs 89.5%, p < 0.05). Female gender was associated with higher teaching evaluation scores compared with male faculty in the lowest quartiles for all combinations of women representation. CONCLUSIONS: This multi-institutional analysis of general surgical resident evaluations of faculty identified that female gender was associated with higher evaluation scores than men (although the difference was small). This unanticipated finding might reflect the slowly changing gender balance within general surgery and attitudes towards female faculty in a traditionally male-dominated field. Contrary to our hypothesis, female gender was associated with higher faculty evaluation scores at programs with fewer women faculty and fewer women residents.

Gastric Cancer Peritoneal Carcinomatosis Risk Score.

BACKGROUND: Gastric cancer (GC) peritoneal carcinomatosis (PC) is associated with a poor prognosis. Although grade, histology, and stage are associated with PC, the cumulative risk of PC when multiple risk factors are present is unknown. This study aimed to develop a cumulative GCPC risk score based on individual demographic/tumor characteristics. METHODS: Patient-level data (2004-2014) from the California Cancer Registry were reviewed by creating a keyword search algorithm to identify patients with gastric PC. Multivariable logistic regression was used to assess demographic/tumor characteristics associated with PC in a randomly selected testing cohort. Scores were assigned to risk factors based on beta coefficients from the logistic regression result, and these scores were applied to the remainder of the subjects (validation cohort). The summed scores of each risk factor formed the total risk score. These were grouped, showing the percentages of patients with PC. RESULTS: The study identified 4285 patients with gastric adenocarcinoma (2757 males, 64.3%). The median age of the patients was 67 years (interquartile range [IQR], 20 years). Most of the patients were non-Hispanic white (n = 1748, 40.8%), with proximal (n = 1675, 39.1%) and poorly differentiated (n = 2908, 67.9%) tumors. The characteristics most highly associated with PC were T4 (odds ratio [OR], 3.12; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.19-4.44), overlapping location (OR 2.27; 95% CI 1.52-3.39), age of 20-40 years (OR 3.42; 95% CI 2.24-5.21), and Hispanic ethnicity (OR 1.86; 95% CI 1.36-2.54). The demographic/tumor characteristics used in the risk score included age, race/ethnicity, T stage, histology, tumor grade, and location. Increasing GCPC score was associated with increasing percentage of patients with PC. CONCLUSION: Based on demographic/tumor characteristics in GC, it is possible to distinguish groups with varying odds for PC. Understanding the risk for PC based on the cumulative effect of high-risk features can help clinicians to customize surveillance strategies and can aid in early identification of PC.

Improved Survival with Immunotherapy but Lack of Synergistic Effect with Radiation for Stage IV Melanoma of the Head and Neck.

Prospective randomized studies have demonstrated a survival benefit of immunotherapy in stage IV cutaneous melanoma. Some retrospective studies have hypothesized a synergistic effect of radiation and immunotherapy. Our objective was to identify whether there is a survival benefit for patients treated with radiation and immunotherapy in stage IV cutaneous melanoma of the head and neck (CMHN). The National Cancer Database was used to identify patients with stage IV CMHN between 2012 and 2014. These patients were stratified based on receipt of radiation and immunotherapy. Adjusted Cox regression was used to analyze overall survival. A total of 542 patients were identified with stage IV CMHN, of whom 153 (28%) patients received immunotherapy. Receipt of immunotherapy (hazard ratio [HR] 0.69, P = 0.02) and negative LNs (HR 0.50, P = 0.002) were independently associated with improved survival, whereas radiation conferred no survival benefit (HR 1.17, P = 0.26). Patients who received immunotherapy without radiation were associated with significantly improved survival compared with those who received immunotherapy with radiation (P < 0.0001). However, of patients who received radiation, the addition of immunotherapy did not seem to improve survival (P = 0.979). In stage IV CMHN, immunotherapy confers a 32 per cent survival benefit. The use of immunotherapy in patients who require radiation, however, is not associated with improved survival.

From Evidence to Practice: Are Low-Risk Breast Cancer Patients still Enduring Unnecessary Costs of Radiation?

Radiation is routinely recommended after conservative surgery for breast cancer, despite long-standing Level I evidence showing no survival benefit for elderly patients with favorable disease using endocrine therapy. We sought to evaluate radiation use and costs in patients eligible for omission of radiation. A retrospective single-institution review from 2005 to 2017 was performed of women aged ≥70 years, with cT1N0M0, who were ER/PR positive and HER-2 negative, and receiving breast-conserving surgery. Patient, tumor, and treatment characteristics were compared by use of radiation. Cost estimates used Medicare's 2019 fee schedule. Of 84 patients meeting the study criteria, 72.6 per cent received radiation and 56 per cent received endocrine therapy, with four recurrences (4.9% radiated and 4.4% not radiated, P = 0.9). Early and late grade I radiation toxicities occurred in 67.2 per cent and 26.2 per cent of radiated patients, respectively. Younger age (P = 0.01), receipt of endocrine therapy (P < 0.0001), and axillary surgery (P < 0.0001) were significantly associated with radiation use. There were no significant differences in radiation use based on race/ethnicity, language, comorbidities, BMI, or pathologic tumor size. Estimated total radiation cost was $646,426. Radiation remains overused and endocrine therapy, underused in breast cancer patients eligible to avoid radiation. As gatekeepers for radiation oncology referrals, surgeons can diminish both physical and financial costs of radiation in eligible patients.

Role of lymph node ratio in selection of adjuvant treatment (chemotherapy vs. chemoradiation) in patients with resected gastric cancer.

BACKGROUND: Recent randomized controlled trials have failed to show a survival difference between adjuvant chemotherapy (CT) and adjuvant chemoradiotherapy (CRT) in patients with resected gastric cancer (GC). However, a subset of patients with lymph node (LN) positive disease may still benefit from CRT. Additional evidence is needed to help guide physicians in identifying patients in whom CRT should be considered. Our objective was then to compare survival outcomes based on lymph node ratio (LNR) (ratio of metastatic to harvested LNs) for patients with gastric and gastroesophageal junction (GEJ) adenocarcinoma treated with surgery and either CT or CRT. METHODS: This retrospective population-based study used California Cancer Registry (CCR) data from 2004 to 2013. It included 1,493 patients diagnosed with stage IB-III gastric/GEJ adenocarcinoma and treated with CT or CRT following total or partial gastrectomy. Overall survival (OS) was the primary outcome and GC-specific survival was secondary. Mortality hazards ratios (HR) for these outcomes were computed using propensity score weighted Cox regression models, stratified by LNR strata categories as 0%, 1-9%, 10-25% and >25%. RESULTS: Out of 1,493 patients that met inclusion criteria, 462 were treated with CT while 1,031 received CRT. Median follow-up for all subjects was 76 months and median survival was 54 months for CRT and 35 for the CT cohort, P<0.001. Compared to CT, CRT was associated with improved survival among patients with LNR of 10-25% [HR =0.62 (95% CI, 0.46-0.83)] and >25% [HR =0.67 (95% CI, 0.56-0.80)]. Similar findings were observed for GC-specific survival and for analyses limited to patients that had at least 15 LNs evaluated. CONCLUSIONS: LNR appears to be a simple and readily available measure that could be used in treatment planning for resected GC. CRT offers significant survival advantage over CT among patients with high LN disease burden (LNR of ≥10%).

Comparison of perioperative chemotherapy with adjuvant chemoradiotherapy for resectable gastric cancer: findings from a population-based study.

BACKGROUND: Both perioperative chemotherapy (PC) and adjuvant chemoradiotherapy (CRT) improve survival in resectable gastric cancer; however, these treatments have never been formally compared. Our objective was to evaluate treatment trends and compare survival outcomes for gastric cancer patients treated with surgery and either PC or CRT. METHODS: We performed a retrospective population-based cohort study between 2007 through 2013 using California Cancer Registry data. Patients diagnosed with stage IB-III gastric adenocarcinoma and treated with total or partial gastrectomy were eligible for this study. Based on the type of treatment received, patients were grouped into surgery-only, PC, or CRT. Primary and secondary outcomes were overall survival (OS) and gastric cancer-specific survival (GCCS) respectively. Mortality hazards ratios (HRs) for each of these outcomes were computed using propensity score weighted and covariate-adjusted Cox regression models, stratified by clinical node status. RESULTS: Of 2,146 patients who underwent surgical resection, 1,067 had surgery-only, while 771 and 308 received PC or CRT, respectively. Median OS was 25, 33, and 52 months for surgery-only, PC, and CRT, respectively; P<0.001. Overall, patients treated with PC had significantly poorer survival compared to CRT (HR =1.45; 95% CI: 1.22-1.73). PC was also associated with higher mortality in patients with signet ring histology (HR =1.66; 95% CI: 1.21-2.28) and clinical node negative cancer (HR =1.85; 95% CI: 1.32-2.60). Survival was not different between PC vs. CRT in clinical node positive patients (HR =1.29; 95% CI: 0.84-2.08). Of note, the percentage of patients receiving PC increased from 17.5% in 2007-2008, to 41.5% in 2013-2014; P<0.001. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the rapid adoption of PC, overall, CRT is associated with better survival than PC. Specifically, clinical node negative and signet ring histology patients had better survival when treated with CRT compared to PC. Based on these findings, we recommend against indiscriminate adoption of PC and consideration for CRT over PC in clinical node negative patients.

Attending Surgeon Variation in Operative Case Length: An Opportunity for Quality Improvement.

Balancing resident education with operating room (OR) efficiency, while accommodating different styles of surgical educators and learners, is a challenging task. We sought to evaluate variability in operative time for breast surgery cases. Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education case logs of breast operations from 2011 to 2017 for current surgical residents at Loma Linda University were correlated with patient records. The main outcome measure was operative time. Breast cases were assessed as these operations are performed during all postgraduate years (PGY). Breast procedures were grouped according to similarity. Variables analyzed included attending surgeon, PGY level, procedure type, month of operation, and American Society of Anesthesiologists class. Of 606 breast cases reviewed, median overall operative time was 150 minutes (interquartile range 187-927). One-way analysis of covariance demonstrated statistically significant variation in operative time by attending surgeon controlling for covariates (PGY level, procedure, American Society of Anesthesiologists class, and month) (P = 0.04). With institutional OR costs of $30 per minute, the average difference between slowest and fastest surgeon was $2400 per case [(218-138) minutes × $30/min]. Minimizing variability for common procedures performed by surgical educators may enhance OR efficiency. However, the impact of case length on surgical resident training requires careful consideration.

Benefit of Surgical Resection of the Primary Tumor in Patients Undergoing Chemotherapy for Stage IV Colorectal Cancer with Unresected Metastasis.

PURPOSE: Resection of the primary tumor in patients with unresected metastatic colorectal cancer is controversial, and often performed only for palliation of symptoms. Our goal was to determine if resection of the primary tumor in this patient population is associated with improved survival. METHODS: This is a retrospective cohort study of the National Cancer Data Base from 2004 to 2012. The study population included all patients with synchronous metastatic colorectal adenocarcinoma who were treated with systemic chemotherapy. The study groups were patients who underwent definitive surgery for the primary tumor and those who did not. Patients were excluded if they had surgical intervention on the sites of metastasis or pathology other than adenocarcinoma. Primary outcome was overall survival. RESULTS: Of the 65,543 patients with unresected stage IV colorectal adenocarcinoma undergoing chemotherapy, 55% underwent surgical resection of the primary site. Patients who underwent surgical resection of the primary tumor had improved median survival compared to patients treated with chemotherapy alone (22 vs 13 months, p < .0001). The surgical survival benefit was present for patients who were treated with either multi-agent or single-agent chemotherapy (23 vs 14 months, p < 0.001; 19 vs 9 months, p < 0.001). Surgical resection of the primary tumor was also associated with improved survival when using multivariate analysis with propensity score matching (OR = 0.863; 95% CI [0.805-.924]; HR = 0.914; 95% CI [0.888-0.942]). CONCLUSIONS: Our results show that in patients with synchronous unresected stage IV colorectal adenocarcinoma undergoing single- or multi-agent chemotherapy, after adjusting for confounding variables, definitive resection of the primary site was associated with improved overall survival. Large randomized controlled trials are needed to determine if there is a causal relationship between surgery and increased overall survival in this patient population.

Factors Associated With Underestimation of Invasive Cancer in Patients With Ductal Carcinoma In Situ: Precautions for Active Surveillance.

IMPORTANCE: Recent recognition of the overdiagnosis and overtreatment of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) detected by mammography has led to the development of clinical trials randomizing women with non-high-grade DCIS to active surveillance, defined as imaging surveillance with or without endocrine therapy, vs standard surgical care. OBJECTIVE: To determine the factors associated with underestimation of invasive cancer in patients with a clinical diagnosis of non-high-grade DCIS that would preclude active surveillance. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A retrospective cohort study was conducted using records from the National Cancer Database from January 1, 1998, to December 31, 2012, of female patients 40 to 99 years of age with a clinical diagnosis of non-high-grade DCIS who underwent definitive surgical treatment. Data analysis was conducted from November 1, 2015, to February 4, 2017. EXPOSURES: Patients with an upgraded diagnosis of invasive carcinoma vs those with a diagnosis of DCIS based on final surgical pathologic findings. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The proportions of cases with an upgraded diagnosis of invasive carcinoma from final surgical pathologic findings were compared by tumor, host, and system characteristics. RESULTS: Of 37 544 women (mean [SD] age, 59.3 [12.4] years) presenting with a clinical diagnosis of non-high-grade DCIS, 8320 (22.2%) had invasive carcinoma based on final pathologic findings. Invasive carcinomas were more likely to be smaller (>0.5 to ≤1.0 cm vs ≤0.5 cm: odds ratio [OR], 0.73; 95% CI, 0.67-0.79; >1.0 to ≤2.0 cm vs ≤0.5 cm: OR, 0.42; 95% CI, 0.39-0.46; >2.0 to ≤5.0 cm vs ≤0.5 cm: OR, 0.19; 95% CI, 0.17-0.22; and >5.0 cm vs ≤0.5 cm: OR, 0.11; 95% CI, 0.08-0.15) and lower grade (intermediate vs low: OR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.69-0.80). Multivariate logistic regression analysis demonstrated that younger age (60-79 vs 40-49 years: OR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.77-0.92; and ≥80 vs 40 to 49 years: OR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.64-0.91), negative estrogen receptor status (positive vs negative: OR, 0.39; 95% CI, 0.34-0.43), treatment at an academic facility (academic vs community: OR, 2.08; 95% CI, 1.82-2.38), and higher annual income (>$63 000 vs <$38 000: OR, 1.14; 95% CI, 1.02-1.28) were significantly associated with an upgraded diagnosis of invasive carcinoma based on final pathologic findings. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: When selecting patients for active surveillance of DCIS, factors other than tumor biology associated with invasive carcinoma based on final pathologic findings may need to be considered. At the time of randomization to active surveillance, a significant proportion of patients with non-high-grade DCIS will harbor invasive carcinoma.

A semi-automated assessment of sarcopenia using psoas area and density predicts outcomes after pancreaticoduodenectomy for pancreatic malignancy.

BACKGROUND: Sarcopenia has been associated with increased adverse outcomes after major abdominal surgery. Sarcopenia defined as decreased muscle volume or increased fatty infiltration may be a proxy for frailty. In conjunction with other preoperative clinical risk factors, radiographic measures of sarcopenia using both muscle size and density may enhance prediction of outcomes after pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) for malignancy. METHODS: Preoperative computed tomography (CT) scans of patients undergoing PD for malignancy were analyzed from a prospective pancreatic surgery database. Sarcopenia was assessed both manually and with a semi-automated technique by measuring the total psoas area index (TPAI) and average Hounsfield units (HU) at the L3 lumbar level to estimate psoas muscle volume and density, respectively. Adjusting for known pre-operative risk factors, preoperative sarcopenia measurements were analyzed relative to perioperative outcomes. RESULTS: Sarcopenia assessments of 116 subjects demonstrated good correlation between the semi-automated and the manual techniques (P<0.0001). Lower TPAI (OR 0.34, P=0.009) and HU (OR 0.84, P=0.002) measurements were predictive of discharge to skilled nursing facility (SNF), but not major complications, length of stay, readmissions or recurrence on univariate analysis. Lower TPAI was protective against the risk of organ/space surgical site infection (SSI) including pancreatic fistula (OR 3.12, P=0.019). On multivariate analysis, the semi-automated measurements of TPAI and HU remained as independent predictors of organ/space SSI including pancreatic fistula (OR 4.23, P=0.014) and discharge to SNF (OR 0.79, P=0.019) respectively. CONCLUSIONS: When combined with preoperative clinical assessments in patients with pancreatic malignancy, semi-automated sarcopenia metrics are a simple, reproducible method that may enhance prediction of outcomes after PD and help guide clinical management.