Quality of emergency oncological surgery: time for advanced oncological life support.

OBJECTIVE: In the emergency care of cancer patients, in addition to cancer-related factors, two aspects influence the outcome: (1) where the patient is treated and (2) who will perform the surgery. In Brazil, a significant proportion of patients with surgical oncological emergencies will be operated on in general hospitals by surgeons without training in oncological surgery. OBJECTIVE: The objective was to discuss quality indicators and propose the creation of an urgent oncological surgery advanced life support course. METHODS: Review of articles on the topic. RESULTS: Generally, nonelective resections are associated with higher rates of morbidity and mortality, as well as lower rates of cancer-specific survival. In comparison to elective procedures, the reduced number of harvested lymph nodes and the higher rate of positive margins suggest a compromised degree of radicality in the emergency scenario. CONCLUSION: Among modifiable factors is the training of the emergency surgeon. Enhancing the practice of oncological surgery in emergency settings constitutes a formidable undertaking that entails collaboration across various medical specialties and warrants endorsement and support from medical societies and educational institutions. It is time to establish a national registry encompassing oncological emergencies, develop quality indicators tailored to the national context, and foster the establishment of specialized training programs aimed at enhancing the proficiency of physicians serving in emergency services catering to cancer patients.

Series on the Lancet Oncology Commission on Global Cancer Surgery: Introduction-Intent and Content.

BACKGROUND: Surgery plays a key role in the multi-disciplinary cancer care pathway. Nearly 80% of patients with solid tumors will require surgical intervention during the course of their disease. Unfortunately, the vast majority of these patients do not have access to safe, timely, high-quality, and affordable cancer surgical care. The first Lancet Oncology Commission on Global Cancer Surgery shone a light on this grave situation and outlined some strategies to address them. The second Lancet Oncology Commission on Global Cancer Surgery (TLO- II) was conceived to continue the work of its predecessor by developing a roadmap of practical solutions to propel improvements in cancer surgical care globally. METHODS: The Commission was developed by involving approximately 50 cancer care leaders and experts from different parts of the world to ensure diversity of input and global applicability. RESULTS: The Commission identified nine solutional domains that are considered essential to deliver safe, timely, high-quality, and affordable cancer surgical care. These nine domains were further refined to develop solutions specific to each of the six World Health Organization regions. Based on the above solutions, we developed eight action items that are intended to propel improvements in cancer surgical care on the global stage. CONCLUSIONS: The second Lancet Oncology Commission on Global Cancer Surgery builds on the first Commission by developing a pragmatic roadmap of practical solutions that we hope will ensure access to safe, timely, high-quality, and affordable cancer surgical care for everyone regardless of their socioeconomic status or geographic location.

Registry-based randomized clinical trials in surgery: Working with ACS-NSQIP and the AHPBA to conduct pragmatic trials.

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) represent the gold standard for evidence in clinical medicine because of their ability to account for the effects of unmeasured confounders and selection bias by indication. However, their complexity and immense costs limit their application, and thus the availability of high-quality data to guide clinical care. Registry-based RCTs are a type of pragmatic trial that leverages existing registries as a platform for data collection, providing a low-cost alternative for randomized studies. Herein, we describe the tenets of registry RCTs and the development of the first AHPBA/ACS-NSQIP-based registry trial.

A Novel Standard for Systematic Reporting of Neuroblastoma Surgery: The International Neuroblastoma Surgical Report Form (INSRF): A Joint Initiative by the Pediatric Oncological Cooperative Groups SIOPEN∗, COG∗∗, and GPOH∗∗∗.

OBJECTIVE: To create the first structured surgical report form for NBL with international consensus, to permit standardized documentation of all NBL-related surgical procedures and their outcomes. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: NBL, the most common extracranial solid malignant tumor in children, covers a wide spectrum of tumors with significant differences in anatomical localization, organ or vessel involvement, and tumor biology. Complete surgical resection of the primary tumor is an important part of NBL treatment, but maybe hazardous, prone to complications and its role in high-risk disease remains debated. Various surgical guidelines exist within the protocols of the different cooperative groups, although there is no standardized operative report form to document the surgical treatment of NBL. METHODS: After analyzing the treatment protocols of the SIOP Europe International Neuroblastoma Study Group, Children's Oncology Group, and Gesellschaft fuer Paediatrische Onkologie und Haematologie - German Association of Pediatric Oncology and Haematology pediatric cooperative groups, important variables were defined to completely describe surgical biopsy and resection of NBL and their outcomes. All variables were discussed within the Surgical Committees of SIOP Europe International Neuroblastoma Study Group, Children's Oncology Group, and Gesellschaft fuer Paediatrische Onkologie und Haematologie - German Association of Pediatric Oncology and Haematology. Thereafter, joint meetings were organized to obtain intercontinental consensus. RESULTS: The "International Neuroblastoma Surgical Report Form" provides a structured reporting tool for all NBL surgery, in every anatomical region, documenting all Image Defined Risk Factors and structures involved, with obligatory reporting of intraoperative and 30 day-postoperative complications. CONCLUSION: The International Neuroblastoma Surgical Report Form is the first universal form for the structured and uniform reporting of NBL-related surgical procedures and their outcomes, aiming to facilitate the postoperative communication, treatment planning and analysis of surgical treatment of NBL.

High-Intensity vs Low-Intensity Knowledge Translation Interventions for Surgeons and Their Association With Process and Outcome Measures Among Patients Undergoing Rectal Cancer Surgery.

Importance: Surgeon-directed knowledge translation (KT) interventions for rectal cancer surgery are designed to improve patient measures, such as rates of permanent colostomy and in-hospital mortality, and to improve survival. Objective: To evaluate the association of sustained, iterative, integrated KT rectal cancer surgery interventions directed at all surgeons with process and outcome measures among patients undergoing rectal cancer surgery in a geographic region. Design, Setting, and Participants: This quality improvement study used administrative data from patients who underwent rectal cancer surgery from April 1, 2004, to March 31, 2015, in 14 health regions in Ontario, Canada. Follow-up was completed on March 31, 2020. Exposures: Surgeons in 2 regions were offered intensive KT interventions, including annual workshops, audit and feedback sessions, and, in 1 of the 2 regions, operative demonstrations, from 2006 to 2012 (high-intensity KT group). Surgeons in the remaining 12 regions did not receive these interventions (low-intensity KT group). Main Outcomes and Measures: Among patients undergoing rectal cancer surgery, proportions of preoperative pelvic magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), preoperative radiotherapy, and type of surgery were evaluated, as were in-hospital mortality and overall survival. Logistic regression models with an interaction term between group and year were used to assess whether process measures and in-hospital mortality differed between groups over time. Results: A total of 15 683 patients were included in the analysis (10 052 [64.1%] male; mean [SD] age, 65.9 [12.1] years), of whom 3762 (24.0%) were in the high-intensity group (2459 [65.4%] male; mean [SD] age, 66.4 [12.0] years) and 11 921 (76.0%) were in the low-intensity KT group (7593 [63.7%] male; mean [SD] age, 65.7 [12.1] years). A total of 1624 patients (43.2%) in the high-intensity group and 4774 (40.0%) in the low-intensity KT group underwent preoperative MRI (P < .001); 1321 (35.1%) and 4424 (37.1%), respectively, received preoperative radiotherapy (P = .03); and 967 (25.7%) and 2365 (19.8%), respectively, received permanent stoma (P < .001). In-hospital mortality was 1.6% (59 deaths) in the high-intensity KT group and 2.2% (258 deaths) in the low-intensity KT group (P = .02). Differences remained significant in multivariable models only for permanent stoma (odds ratio [OR], 1.67; 95% CI, 1.24-2.24; P < .001) and in-hospital mortality (OR, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.51-0.87; P = .003). In both groups over time, significant increases in the proportion of patients undergoing preoperative MRI (from 6.3% to 67.1%) and preoperative radiotherapy (from 16.5% to 44.7%) occurred, but there were no significant changes for permanent stoma (25.4% to 25.3% in the high-intensity group and 20.0% to 18.3% in the low-intensity group) and in-hospital mortality (0.8% to 0.8% in the high-intensity group and 2.2% to 1.8% in the low-intensity group). Time trends were similar between groups for measures that did or did not change over time. Patient overall survival was similar between groups (hazard ratio, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.90-1.11; P = .99). Conclusions and Relevance: In this quality improvement study, between-group differences were found in only 2 measures (permanent stoma and in-hospital mortality), but these differences were stable over time. High-intensity KT group interventions were not associated with improved patient measures and outcomes. Proper evaluation of KT or quality improvement interventions may help avoid opportunity costs associated with ineffective strategies.

Breast reconstruction and radiation therapy: An Italian expert Delphi consensus statements and critical review.

Breast conserving surgery (BCS) plus radiation therapy (RT) or mastectomy have shown comparable oncological outcomes in early-stage breast cancer and are considered standard of care treatments. Postmastectomy radiation therapy (PMRT) targeted to both the chest wall and regional lymph nodes is recommended in high-risk patients. Oncoplastic breast conserving surgery (OBCS) represents a significant recent improvement in breast surgery. Nevertheless, it represents a challenge for radiation oncologists as it triggers different decision-making strategies related to treatment volume definition and target delineation. Hence, the choice of the best combination and timing when offering RT to breast cancer patients who underwent or are planned to undergo reconstruction procedures should be carefully evaluated and based on individual considerations. We present an Italian expert Delphi Consensus statements and critical review, led by a core group of all the professional profiles involved in the management of breast cancer patients undergoing reconstructive procedures and RT. The report was structured as to consider the main recommendations on breast reconstruction and RT and analyse the current open issues deserving investigation and consensus. We used a three key-phases and a Delphi process. The final expert panel of 40 colleagues selected key topics as identified by the core group of the project. A final consensus on 26 key statements on RT and breast reconstruction after three rounds of the Delphi voting process and harmonisation was reached. An accompanying critical review of available literature was summarized. A clear communication and cooperation between surgeon and radiation oncologist is of paramount relevance both in the setting of breast reconstruction following mastectomy when PMRT is planned and when extensive glandular rearrangements as OBCS is performed. A shared-decision making, relying on outcome-based and patient-centred considerations, is essential, while waiting for higher level-of-evidence data.

Comparing unilateral vs. bilateral neck management in lateralized oropharyngeal cancer between surgical and radiation oncologists: An international practice pattern survey.

BACKGROUND: Management of the neck in oropharyngeal carcinoma varies due to a lack of clarity of patterns of lymphatic drainage and concern of failure in the contralateral neck. With recent advances in transoral surgical techniques, surgical management has become increasingly prevalent as the primary treatment modality. We compare international practice patterns between surgical and radiation oncologists. METHODS: A survey of neck management practice patterns was developed and pilot tested by 6 experts. The survey comprised items eliciting the nature of clinical practice, as well as patterns of neck management depending on extent of nodal disease and location and extent of primary site disease. Proportions of surgical and radiation oncologists treating the neck bilaterally were compared using the chi-squared statistic. RESULTS: Two-hundred and twenty-two responses were received from 172 surgical oncologists, 44 radiation oncologists, 3 medical oncologists, and 3 non-oncologists from 32 different countries. For tongue base cancers within 1 cm of midline (67% vs. 100%, p < 0.001), and for tonsil cancers with extension to the medial 1/3 of the soft palate (65% vs. 100%, p < 0.001) or tongue base (77% vs. 100%, p < 0.001), surgical oncologists were less likely to treat the neck bilaterally. For isolated tonsil fossa cancers with no nodal disease, both surgical and radiation oncologists were similarly likely to treat unilaterally (99% vs. 97%, p = NS). However, with increasing nodal burden, radiation oncologists were more likely to treat bilaterally for scenarios with a single node < 3 cm (15% vs. 2%, p < 0.001), a single node with extranodal extension (41% vs. 18%, p < 0.001), multiple positive nodes (55% vs. 23% p < 0.001), and node(s) > 6 cm (86% vs. 33%, p < 0.001). For tumors with midline extension, even with a negative PET in the contralateral neck, the majority of surgical and radiation oncologists would still treat the neck bilaterally (53% and 84% respectively). CONCLUSIONS: The present study demonstrates significant practice pattern variability for management of the neck in patients with lateralized oropharyngeal carcinoma. Surgical oncologists are less likely to treat the neck bilaterally, regardless of tumor location or nodal burden. Even in the absence of disease in the contralateral neck on imaging, them majority of practitioners are likely to treat bilaterally when the disease approaches midline.

Impact of COVID-19 pandemic on cancer surgery: Patient's perspective.

BACKGROUND: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has impacted cancer care globally. The aim of this study is to analyze the impact of COVID-19 on cancer healthcare from the perspective of patients with cancer. METHODS: A cross-sectional survey was conducted between June 19, 2020, to August 7, 2020, using a questionnaire designed by patients awaiting cancer surgery. We examined the impact of COVID-19 on five domains (financial status, healthcare access, stress, anxiety, and depression) and their relationship with various patient-related variables. Factors likely to determine the influence of COVID-19 on patient care were analyzed. RESULTS: A significant adverse impact was noted in all five domains (p = < 0.05), with the maximal impact felt in the domain of financial status followed by healthcare access. Patients with income levels of INR < 35 K (adjusted odds ratio [AOR] = 1.61, p < 0.05), and 35K- 100 K (AOR = 1.96, p < 0.05), married patients (AOR = 3.30, p < 0.05), and rural patients (AOR = 2.82, p < 0.05) experienced the most adverse COVID-19-related impact. CONCLUSION: Delivering quality cancer care in low to middle-income countries is a challenge even in normal times. During this pandemic, deficiencies in this fragile healthcare delivery system were exacerbated. Identification of vulnerable groups of patients and strategic utilization of available resources becomes even more important during global catastrophes, such as the current COVID-19 pandemic. Further work is required in these avenues to not only address the current pandemic but also any potential future crises.

Integrating the melanoma 31-gene expression profile test with surgical oncology practice within national guideline and staging recommendations.

Aim: Define changes in clinical management resulting from the use of the prognostic 31-gene expression profile (31-GEP) test for cutaneous melanoma in a surgical oncology practice. Patients & methods: Management plans for 112 consecutively tested patients with stage I-III melanoma were evaluated for duration and number of clinical visits, blood work and imaging. Results: 31-GEP high-risk (class 2; n = 46) patients received increased management compared with low-risk (class 1; n = 66) patients. Test results were most closely associated with follow-up and imaging. Of class 1 patients, 65% received surveillance intensity within guidelines for stage I-IIA patients; 98% of class 2 patients received surveillance intensity equal to stage IIB-IV patients. Conclusion: We suggest clinical follow-up and metastatic screening be adjusted according to 31-GEP test results.

Opioid prescribing exceeds consumption following common surgical oncology procedures.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Surgical oncology patients are vulnerable to persistent opioid use. As such, we aim to compare opioid prescribing to opioid consumption for common surgical oncology procedures. METHODS: We prospectively identified patients undergoing common surgical oncology procedures at a single academic institution (August 2017-March 2018). Patients were contacted by telephone within 6 months of surgery and asked to report their opioid consumption and describe their discharge instructions and opioid handling practices. RESULTS: Of the 439 patients who were approached via telephone, 270 completed at least one survey portion. The median quantity of opioid prescribed was significantly larger than consumed following breast biopsy (5 vs. 2 tablets of 5 mg oxycodone, p < .001), lumpectomy (10 vs. 2 tablets of 5 mg oxycodone, p < .001), and mastectomy or wide local excision (20 tablets vs. 2 tablets of 5 mg oxycodone, p < .001). The majority of patients reported receiving education on taking opioids, but only 27% received instructions on proper disposal; 82% of prescriptions filled resulted in unused opioids, and only 11% of these patients safely disposed of them. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates that opioid prescribing exceeds consumption following common surgical oncology procedures, indicating the potential for reductions in prescribing.

High-Risk Nonmuscle Invasive Bladder Cancer: Selecting the Appropriate Patient for Timely Cystectomy.

The heterogenous nature of high-risk nonmuscle invasive bladder cancer encompasses a wide range of tumor biologies with varying recurrence and progression risks. Radical cystectomy provides excellent oncologic outcomes but is often underutilized. Timing for these patients is critical, however, to its effectiveness. Certain unfavorable tumor characteristics predict worse outcomes and may help select the most appropriate patients for more aggressive initial therapy. This manuscript aims to outline factors that predict worse outcomes in high-risk nonmuscle invasive bladder cancer and proposes which patients may benefit most from a timely radical cystectomy.

Program and candidate experience with virtual interviews for the 2020 Complex General Surgical Oncology interview season during the COVID pandemic.

BACKGROUND: The COVID crisis hit during the interview season for the Complex General Surgical Oncology (CGSO) fellowship. With minimal time to adapt, all programs transitioned to virtual interviews. Here we describe the experience of both program directors (PDs) and candidates with virtual interviews, and provide guidelines for implementation based on the results. METHODS: Surveys regarding interview day specifics and perceptions were created for CGSO fellowship PDs and candidates. They were distributed at the conclusion of the season, prior to match. RESULTS: Thirty (94%) PDs and 64 (79%) candidates responded. Eighty-three% of PDs and 79% of candidates agreed or strongly agreed that they felt comfortable creating a rank list. If given the choice, 60% of PDs and 45% of candidates would choose virtual interviews over in-person interviews. The majority of candidates found PD overviews, fellows only sessions and pre-interview materials helpful. CONCLUSION: Overall, the majority of PDs and candidates felt comfortable creating a rank list; however, more PDs preferred virtual interviews for the future. Our results also confirm key components of a virtual interview day.

Do Better Operative Reports Equal Better Surgery? A Comparative Evaluation of Compliance With Operative Standards for Cancer Surgery.

To improve the quality of cancer operations, the American College of Surgeons published Operative Standards for Cancer Surgery, which has been incorporated into Commission on Cancer (CoC) accreditation requirements. We sought to determine if compliance with operative standards was associated with technical surgical outcomes. Oncologic operative reports from 2017 at a CoC and non-CoC institution were examined for documentation of Operative Standards essential steps. Lymph node (LN) yield for lung and colon cases and re-excision rates for breast cases were recorded. Correct documentation was poor for colon, breast, and lung cases with numerous elements documented in <10% of operative reports at both centers. For lung cases, there was no significant difference in meeting ≥10 LN benchmark or average LN yield between the 2 institutions. For colon cases, average lymph node yield was lower in the non-CoC facility, but there was no significant difference in meeting ≥12 LN benchmark. For breast cases, re-excision rates were similar in both programs. Many essential steps in Operative Standards were poorly documented in operative reports, regardless of CoC status. Achieving benchmark technical surgical outcomes was not associated with documented compliance with these standards. Whether improved documentation leads to better surgical outcomes requires further investigation.

Volume Pledge is Not Associated with Better Short-Term Outcomes After Lung Cancer Resection.

PURPOSE: We examined the relationship between short-term outcomes and hospitals and surgeons who met minimum volume thresholds for lung cancer resection based on definitions provided by the Volume Pledge. A secondary aim was to evaluate the volume-outcome relationship to determine alternative thresholds in the event the Volume Pledge was not associated with outcomes. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We conducted a retrospective study (2015-2017) using the Society of Thoracic Surgeons General Thoracic Surgery Database. We used generalized estimating equations that accounted for confounding and clustering to compare outcomes across hospitals and surgeons who did and did not meet the Volume Pledge criteria: ≥ 40 patients per year for hospitals and ≥ 20 patients per year for surgeons. Our secondary aim was to model volume by using restricted cubic splines to determine the association between volume and short-term outcomes. RESULTS: Among 32,183 patients, 465 surgeons, and 209 hospitals, 16,630 patients (52%) received care from both a hospital and surgeon meeting the Volume Pledge criteria. After adjustment, there was no relationship with operative mortality, complications, major morbidity, a major morbidity-mortality composite end point, or failure to rescue. The Volume Pledge group had a 0.5 day (95% CI, 0.2 to 0.7 day) shorter length of stay. Our secondary aim revealed a nonlinear relationship between hospital volume and complications in which intermediate-volume hospitals had the highest risk of complications. Surgeon volume was associated with major morbidity, a major morbidity-mortality composite end point, and length of stay in an inverse linear fashion. Only 8% of surgeons had volumes associated with better outcomes. CONCLUSION: The Volume Pledge was not associated with better outcomes except for a marginally shorter length of stay. A re-examination of volume-outcome relationships for hospitals and surgeons yielded mixed results that did not reveal a practical alternative for volume-based quality improvement efforts.

Recommendations for head and neck surgical oncology practice in a setting of acute severe resource constraint during the COVID-19 pandemic: an international consensus.

The speed and scale of the global COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in unprecedented pressures on health services worldwide, requiring new methods of service delivery during the health crisis. In the setting of severe resource constraint and high risk of infection to patients and clinicians, there is an urgent need to identify consensus statements on head and neck surgical oncology practice. We completed a modified Delphi consensus process of three rounds with 40 international experts in head and neck cancer surgical, radiation, and medical oncology, representing 35 international professional societies and national clinical trial groups. Endorsed by 39 societies and professional bodies, these consensus practice recommendations aim to decrease inconsistency of practice, reduce uncertainty in care, and provide reassurance for clinicians worldwide for head and neck surgical oncology in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic and in the setting of acute severe resource constraint and high risk of infection to patients and staff.

When to Operate, Hesitate and Reintegrate: Society of Gynecologic Oncology Surgical Considerations during the COVID-19 Pandemic.

The COVID-19 pandemic has challenged our ability to provide timely surgical care for our patients. In response, the U.S. Surgeon General, the American College of Srugeons, and other surgical professional societies recommended postponing elective surgical procedures and proceeding cautiously with cancer procedures that may require significant hospital resources and expose vulnerable patients to the virus. These challenges have particularly distressing for women with a gynecologic cancer diagnosis and their providers. Currently, circumstances vary greatly by region and by hospital, depending on COVID-19 prevalence, case mix, hospital type, and available resources. Therefore, COVID-19-related modifications to surgical practice guidelines must be individualized. Special consideration is necessary to evaluate the appropriateness of procedural interventions, recognizing the significant resources and personnel they require. Additionally, the pandemic may occur in waves, with patient demand for surgery ebbing and flowing accordingly. Hospitals, cancer centers and providers must prepare themselves to meet this demand. The purpose of this white paper is to highlight all phases of gynecologic cancer surgical care during the COVID-19 pandemic and to illustrate when it is best to operate, to hestitate, and reintegrate surgery. Triage and prioritization of surgical cases, preoperative COVID-19 testing, peri-operative safety principles, and preparations for the post-COVID-19 peak and surgical reintegration are reviewed.