Association of pathologic factors with postoperative venous thromboembolism after gastrointestinal cancer surgery.

BACKGROUND: Venous thromboembolism (VTE) chemoprophylaxis is the standard of care after gastrointestinal (GI) cancer surgery; however, variation in risk based on pathologic factors (eg, stage and histology) is unclear. This study aimed to evaluate the association of pathologic factors with VTE after GI cancer surgery. METHODS: The American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program procedure targeted datasets were queried for patients who underwent colorectal, pancreatic, primary hepatic, and esophageal cancer surgery between 2017 and 2020. Disease-specific and pathologic factors associated with postoperative VTE were evaluated using multivariable logistic regression. RESULTS: Among 70,934 patients who underwent GI cancer surgery, the incidence rates of 30-day postoperative VTE were 3.3% for pancreatic cancer, 3.2% for esophageal cancer, 2.7% for primary hepatic, and 1.3% for colorectal cancer. T stage was associated with VTE for colorectal cancer (T4 vs T1; odds ratio [OR], 1.79; 95% CI, 1.24-2.60), pancreatic cancer (all T stages vs T1; P < .05), and primary hepatic cancer (T4 vs T1; OR, 2.80; 95% CI, 1.55-5.08). N stage was associated with VTE for colorectal cancer (N2 vs N0; OR, 1.33; 95% CI, 1.04-1.68) and pancreatic cancer (N2 vs N0; OR, 1.36; 95% CI, 1.03-1.81). M stage was associated with VTE for colorectal cancer (OR, 1.47; 95% CI, 1.17-1.85) and esophageal cancer (OR, 2.54; 95% CI, 1.24-5.19). Histologic subtype was not associated with VTE, except for pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors vs adenocarcinoma (OR, 1.34; 95% CI, 1.03-1.74). CONCLUSION: Pathologic factors were associated with higher 30-day VTE risk after GI cancer surgery. Acknowledging the association of pathologic factors on VTE is an important first step to considering a more tailored approach to chemoprophylaxis.

Survival Among Patients With High-Risk Gastrointestinal Cancers During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

Importance: Prior reports demonstrated that patients with cancer experienced worse outcomes from pandemic-related stressors and COVID-19 infection. Patients with certain malignant neoplasms, such as high-risk gastrointestinal (HRGI) cancers, may have been particularly affected. Objective: To evaluate disruptions in care and outcomes among patients with HRGI cancers during the COVID-19 pandemic, assessing for signs of long-term changes in populations and survival. Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective cohort study used data from the National Cancer Database to identify patients with HRGI cancer (esophageal, gastric, primary liver, or pancreatic) diagnosed between January 1, 2018, and December 31, 2020. Data were analyzed between August 23 and September 4, 2023. Main Outcome and Measures: Trends in monthly new cases and proportions by stage in 2020 were compared with the prior 2 years. Kaplan-Meier curves and Cox regression were used to assess 1-year mortality in 2020 compared with 2018 to 2019. Proportional monthly trends and multivariable logistic regression were used to evaluate 30-day and 90-day mortality in 2020 compared with prior years. Results: Of the 156 937 patients included in this study, 54 994 (35.0%) were aged 60 to 69 years and 100 050 (63.8%) were men. There was a substantial decrease in newly diagnosed HRGI cancers in March to May 2020, which returned to prepandemic levels by July 2020. For stage, there was a proportional decrease in the diagnosis of stage I (-3.9%) and stage II (-2.3%) disease, with an increase in stage IV disease (7.1%) during the early months of the pandemic. Despite a slight decrease in 1-year survival rates in 2020 (50.7% in 2018 and 2019 vs 47.4% in 2020), survival curves remained unchanged between years (all P > .05). After adjusting for confounders, diagnosis in 2020 was not associated with increased 1-year mortality compared with 2018 to 2019 (hazard ratio, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.97-1.01). The rates of 30-day (2.1% in 2018, 2.0% in 2019, and 2.1% in 2020) and 90-day (4.3% in 2018, 4.4% in 2019, and 4.6% in 2020) operative mortality also remained similar. Conclusions and Relevance: In this retrospective cohort study, a period of underdiagnosis and increase in stage IV disease was observed for HRGI cancers during the pandemic; however, there was no change in 1-year survival or operative mortality. These results demonstrate the risks associated with gaps in care and the tremendous efforts of the cancer community to ensure quality care delivery during the pandemic. Future research should investigate long-term survival changes among all cancer types as additional follow-up data are accrued.

Safety and feasibility of establishing an adjuvant hepatic artery infusion program.

BACKGROUND: Hepatic artery infusion (HAI) is less frequently used in the adjuvant setting for resectable colorectal liver metastasis (CRLM) due to concerns regarding toxicity. Our objective was to evaluate the safety and feasibility of establishing an adjuvant HAI program. METHODS: Patients who underwent HAI pump placement between January 2019 and February 2023 for CRLM were identified. Complications and HAI delivery were compared between patients who received HAI in the unresectable and adjuvant settings. RESULTS: Of 51 patients, 23 received HAI for unresectable CRLM and 28 in the adjuvant setting. Patients with unresectable CRLM more commonly had bilobar disease (n = 23/23 vs n = 18/28, p < 0.01) and more preoperative liver metastases (median 10 [IQR 6-15] vs 4 [IQR 3-7], p < 0.01). Biliary sclerosis was the most common complication (n = 2/23 vs n = 4/28); however, there were no differences in postoperative or HAI-specific complications. In the most recent two years, 0 patients in the unresectable group vs 2 patients in the adjuvant group developed biliary sclerosis. All patients were initiated on HAI with no difference in treatment times or dose reductions. CONCLUSION: Adjuvant HAI is safe and feasible for patients with resectable CRLM. HAI programs can carefully consider including patients with resectable CRLM if managed by an experienced multidisciplinary team with quality assurance controls in place.

Establishing the clinical relevance of grade A post-hepatectomy liver failure.

INTRODUCTION: The International Study Group of Liver Surgery's criteria stratifies post-hepatectomy liver failure (PHLF) into grades A, B, and C. The clinical significance of these grades has not been fully established. METHODS: The American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (ACS NSQIP) hepatectomy-targeted database was analyzed. Outcomes between patients without PHLF, with grade A PHLF, and grade B or C PHLF were compared. Univariate and multivariable logistic regression were performed. RESULTS: Six thousand two hundred seventy-four adults undergoing elective major hepatectomy were included in the analysis. The incidence of grade A PHLF was 4.3% and grade B or C was 5.3%. Mortality was similar between patients without PHLF (1.2%) and with grade A PHLF (1.1%), but higher in those with grades B or C PHLF (25.4%). Overall morbidities rates were 19.3%, 41.7%, and 72.8% in patients without PHLF, with grade A PHLF, and with grade B or C PHLF, respectively (p < 0.001). Grade A PHLF was associated with increased morbidity (grade A: odds ratios [OR] 2.7 [95% CI: 2.0-3.5]), unplanned reoperation (grade A: OR 3.4 [95% CI: 2.2-5.1]), nonoperative intervention (grade A: OR 2.6 [95% CI: 1.9-3.6]), length of stay (grade A: OR 3.1 [95% CI: 2.3-4.1]), and readmission (grade A: OR 1.8 [95% CI: 1.3-2.5]) compared to patients without PHLF. CONCLUSIONS: Although mortality was similar between patients without PHLF and with grade A PHLF, other postoperative outcomes were notably inferior. Grade A PHLF is a clinically distinct entity with relevant associated postoperative morbidity.

Association Between Racial and Socioeconomic Disparities and Hospital Performance in Treatment and Outcomes for Patients with Colon Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Disparities in colon cancer care and outcomes by race/ethnicity, socioeconomic status (SES), and insurance are well recognized; however, the extent to which inequalities are driven by patient factors versus variation in hospital performance remains unclear. We sought to compare disparities in care delivery and outcomes at low- and high-performing hospitals. METHODS: We identified patients with stage I-III colon adenocarcinoma from the 2012-2017 National Cancer Database. Adequate lymphadenectomy and timely adjuvant chemotherapy administration defined hospital performance. Multilevel regression models evaluated disparities by race/ethnicity, SES, and insurance at the lowest- and highest-performance quartile hospitals. RESULTS: Of 92,573 patients from 704 hospitals, 45,982 (49.7%) were treated at 404 low-performing hospitals and 46,591 (50.3%) were treated at 300 high-performing hospitals. Low-performing hospitals treated more non-Hispanic (NH) Black, Hispanic, low SES, and Medicaid patients (all p < 0.01). Among low-performing hospitals, patients with low versus high SES (odds ratio [OR] 0.87, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.82-0.92), and Medicare (OR 0.90, 95% CI 0.85-0.96) and Medicaid (OR 0.88, 95% CI 0.80-0.96) versus private insurance, had decreased odds of receiving high-quality care. At high-performing hospitals, NH Black versus NH White patients (OR 0.83, 95% CI 0.72-0.95) had decreased odds of receiving high-quality care. Low SES, Medicare, Medicaid, and uninsured patients had worse overall survival at low- and high-performing hospitals (all p < 0.01). CONCLUSION: Disparities in receipt of high-quality colon cancer care occurred by SES and insurance at low-performing hospitals, and by race at high-performing hospitals. However, survival disparities by SES and insurance exist irrespective of hospital performance. Future steps include improving low-performing hospitals and identifying mechanisms affecting survival disparities.

Access, Outcomes, and Costs Associated with Surgery for Malignancy Among People Experiencing Homelessness.

BACKGROUND: Little is known about surgery for malignancy among people experiencing homelessness (PEH). Poor healthcare access may lead to delayed diagnosis and need for unplanned surgery. This study aimed to (1) characterize access to care among PEH, (2) evaluate postoperative outcomes, and (3) assess costs associated with surgery for malignancy among PEH. METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort study of patients in the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project (HCUP) who underwent surgery in Florida, New York, or Massachusetts for gastrointestinal or lung cancer from 2016 to 2017. PEH were identified using HCUP's "Homeless" variable and ICD-10 code Z59. Multivariable regression models controlling patient and hospital variables evaluated associations between homelessness and postoperative morbidity, length of stay (LOS), 30-day readmission, and hospitalization costs. RESULTS: Of 67,034 patients at 566 hospitals, 98 (0.2%) were PEH. Most PEH (44.9%) underwent surgery for colorectal cancer. PEH more frequently underwent unplanned surgery than housed patients (65.3% vs 23.7%, odds ratio (OR) 5.17, 95% confidence interval (CI) 3.00-8.92) and less often were treated at cancer centers (66.0% vs 76.2%, p=0.02). Morbidity rates were similar between groups (20.4% vs 14.5%, p=0.10). However, PEH demonstrated higher odds of facility discharge (OR 5.89, 95% CI 3.50-9.78) and readmission (OR 1.81, 95% CI 1.07-3.05) as well as 67.7% longer adjusted LOS (95% CI 42.0-98.2%). Adjusted costs were 32.7% higher (95% CI 14.5-53.9%) among PEH. CONCLUSIONS: PEH demonstrated increased odds of unplanned surgery, longer LOS, and increased costs. These results underscore a need for improved access to oncologic care for PEH.

Emergency department use after outpatient thyroidectomy across three states.

BACKGROUND: Although outpatient thyroidectomy has become common, few large-scale studies have examined post-thyroidectomy emergency department use, readmission, and encounters not resulting in readmission, known as "treat-and-release" encounters. We evaluated post-outpatient thyroidectomy emergency department use and readmission and characterized associated factors. METHODS: Using the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project databases, we identified adult outpatient (same-day or <24-hour discharge) thyroidectomies performed in Florida, Maryland, and New York from 2016 to 2017. We identified the procedures linked with emergency department treat-and-release encounters and readmissions within 30 days postoperatively and the factors associated with post-thyroidectomy emergency department use and readmission. RESULTS: Of the 17,046 patients who underwent outpatient thyroidectomy at 374 facilities, 7.5% had emergency department treat-and-release encounters and 2.3% readmissions. The most common reasons for emergency department treat-and-release encounters (9.9%) and readmissions (22.2%) were hypocalcemia-related diagnoses. Greater odds of treat-and-release were associated with identifying as non-Hispanic Black (adjusted odds ratio: 1.5, 95% confidence interval: 1.3-1.8) or Hispanic race/ethnicity (adjusted odds ratio: 1.4, 95% CI: 1.1-1.6), having Medicaid insurance (adjusted odds ratio: 2.7, 95% CI: 2.3-3.2), and living in non-metropolitan areas (adjusted odds ratio: 1.6, 95% CI: 1.1-2.2). We observed no associations between these factors and the odds of readmission. CONCLUSION: Emergency department use after outpatient thyroidectomy is common. Racial, ethnic, socioeconomic, and geographic disparities are associated with treat-and-release encounters but not readmissions. Standardization of perioperative care pathways, focusing on identifying and addressing specific issues in vulnerable populations, could improve care, reduce disparities, and improve patient experience by avoiding unnecessary emergency department visits after outpatient thyroidectomy.

Alterations in Cancer Treatment During the First Year of the COVID-19 Pandemic in the US.

Importance: The COVID-19 pandemic created challenges to the evaluation and treatment of cancer, and abrupt resource diversion toward patients with COVID-19 put cancer treatment on hold for many patients. Previous reports have shown substantial declines in cancer screening and diagnoses in 2020; however, the extent to which the delivery of cancer care was altered remains unclear. Objective: To assess alterations in cancer treatment in the US during the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic. Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective cohort study used data from the National Cancer Database (NCDB) on patients older than 18 years with newly diagnosed cancer from January 1, 2018, to December 31, 2020. Main Outcomes and Measures: The main outcomes were accessibility (time to treatment, travel distance, and multi-institutional care), availability (proportional changes in cancer treatment between years), and utilization (reductions by treatment modality, hospital type) of cancer treatment in 2020 compared with 2018 to 2019. Autoregressive models forecasted expected findings for 2020 based on observations from prior years. Results: Of 1 229 654 patients identified in the NCDB in 2020, 1 074 225 were treated for cancer, representing a 16.8% reduction from what was expected. Patients were predominately female (53.8%), with a median age of 66 years (IQR, 57-74 years), similar to demographics in 2018 and 2019. Median time between diagnosis and treatment was 26 days (IQR, 0-36 days) in 2020, and median travel distance for care was 11.1 miles (IQR, 5.0-25.3 miles), similar to 2018 and 2019. In 2020, fewer patients traveled longer distances (20.2% reduction of patients traveling >35 miles). The proportions of patients treated with chemotherapy (32.0%), radiation (29.5%), and surgery (57.1%) were similar to those in 2018 and 2019. Overall, 146 805 fewer patients than expected underwent surgery, 80 480 fewer received radiation, and 68 014 fewer received chemotherapy. Academic hospitals experienced the greatest reduction in cancer surgery and treatment, with a decrease of approximately 484 patients (-19.0%) per hospital compared with 99 patients (-12.6%) at community hospitals and 110 patients (-12.8%) at integrated networks. Conclusions and Relevance: This study found that among patients diagnosed with cancer in 2020, access and availability of treatment remained intact; however, reductions in treated patients varied across treatment modalities and were greater at academic hospitals than at community hospitals and integrated networks compared with expected values. These results suggest the resilience of cancer service lines and frame the economic losses from reductions in cancer treatment during the pandemic.

Venous Thromboembolism Chemoprophylaxis Adherence Rates After Major Cancer Surgery.

Importance: Venous thromboembolism (VTE) represents a major source of preventable morbidity and mortality and is a leading cause of death in the US after cancer surgery. Previous research demonstrated variability in VTE chemoprophylaxis prescribing, although it is unknown how these rates compare with performance in the Veterans Health Administration (VHA). Objective: To determine VTE rates after cancer surgery, as well as rates of inpatient and outpatient (posthospital discharge) chemoprophylaxis adherence within the VHA. Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective cohort study within 101 hospitals of the VHA health system included patients aged 41 years or older without preexisting bleeding disorders or anticoagulation usage who underwent surgical treatment for cancer with general surgery, thoracic surgery, or urology between January 1, 2015, and December 31, 2022. The VHA Corporate Data Warehouse, Pharmacy Benefits Management database, and the Veterans Affairs Surgical Quality Improvement Program database were used to identify eligible patients. Data analysis was conducted between January 2022 and July 2023. Exposures: Inpatient surgery for cancer with general surgery, thoracic surgery, or urology. Main Outcomes and Measures: Rates of postoperative VTE events within 30 days of surgery and VTE chemoprophylaxis adherence were determined. Multivariable Poisson regression was used to determine incidence-rate ratios of inpatient and postdischarge chemoprophylaxis adherence by surgical specialty. Results: Overall, 30 039 veterans (median [IQR] age, 67 [62-71] years; 29 386 men [97.8%]; 7771 African American or Black patients [25.9%]) who underwent surgery for cancer and were at highest risk for VTE were included. The overall postoperative VTE rate was 1.3% (385 patients) with 199 patients (0.7%) receiving a diagnosis during inpatient hospitalization and 186 patients (0.6%) receiving a diagnosis postdischarge. Inpatient chemoprophylaxis was ordered for 24 139 patients (80.4%). Inpatient chemoprophylaxis ordering rates were highest for patients who underwent procedures with general surgery (10 102 of 10 301 patients [98.1%]) and lowest for patients who underwent procedures with urology (11 471 of 17 089 patients [67.1%]). Overall, 3142 patients (10.5%) received postdischarge chemoprophylaxis, with notable variation by specialty. Conclusions and Relevance: These findings indicate the overall VTE rate after cancer surgery within the VHA is low, VHA inpatient chemoprophylaxis rates are high, and postdischarge VTE chemoprophylaxis prescribing is similar to that of non-VHA health systems. Specialty and procedure variation exists for chemoprophylaxis and may be justified given the low risks of overall and postdischarge VTE.

Current Practices in Hepatic Artery Infusion (HAI) Chemotherapy: An International Survey of the HAI Consortium Research Network.

BACKGROUND: An increasing number of hepatic artery infusion (HAI) programs have been established worldwide. Practice patterns for this complex therapy across these programs have not been reported. This survey aimed to identify current practice patterns in HAI therapy with the long-term goal of defining best practices and performing prospective studies. METHODS: Using SurveyMonkeyTM, a 28-question survey assessing current practices in HAI was developed by 12 HAI Consortium Research Network (HCRN) surgical oncologists. Content analysis was used to code textual responses, and the frequency of categories was calculated. Scores for rank-order questions were generated by calculating average ranking for each answer choice. RESULTS: Thirty-six (72%) HCRN members responded to the survey. The most common intended initial indications for HAI at new programs were unresectable colorectal liver metastases (uCRLM; 100%) and unresectable intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (uIHC; 56%). Practice patterns evolved such that uCRLM (94%) and adjuvant therapy for CRLM (adjCRLM; 72%) have become the most common current indications for HAI at established centers. Referral patterns for pump placement differed between uCRLM and uIHC, with most patients referred while receiving second- and first-line therapy, respectively, with physicians preferring to evaluate patients for HAI while receiving first-line therapy for CRLM. Concern for extrahepatic disease was ranked as the most important factor when considering a patient for HAI. CONCLUSIONS: Indication and patient selection factors for HAI therapy are relatively uniform across most HCRN centers. The increasing use of adjuvant HAI therapy and overall consistency of practice patterns among HCRN centers provides a robust environment for prospective data collection and randomized clinical trials.

Evaluation of Nationwide Trends in Nodal Sampling Guideline Adherence for Gastric Cancer: 2005-2017.

INTRODUCTION: Surgical resection is the primary curative treatment for localized gastric cancer. A multitude of research supports surgical nodal sampling guidelines. Though there are known disparities in adherence to nodal sampling, it is unclear how hospital program-level disparities have changed over time. The purpose of this study is to evaluate trends in program-level disparities in adherence to gastric cancer nodal sampling guidelines. METHODS: Patients who underwent resection of gastric cancer from 2005 to 2017 were identified in the National Cancer Database. Patients treated at academic programs were compared to those treated at nonacademic programs, and rates and trends of adherence to nodal sampling guidelines (defined as ≥15 lymph nodes) were determined. Adjusted multivariable analysis was used to determine likelihood of nodal sampling adherence while controlling for sociodemographic, clinical, hospital, and travel distance characteristics. RESULTS: A total of 55,421 patients were included with 27,201 (49.1%) of patients meeting adherence criteria for lymph node sampling. Academic programs treated 44.4% of the total cohort. Overall, lymph node sampling criteria were met in 59.2% of patients treated at high-volume academic programs and 37.0% of patients treated at low-volume nonacademic programs (incidence rate ratios 0.67, 95% confidence interval 0.63-0.72 versus high-volume academic programs). Adherence rates improved from 2005 to 2017 for both low-volume nonacademic programs (27.8% in 2005 to 50.1% in 2017) and high-volume academic programs (46.0% in 2005 to 69.8% in 2017, P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Though adherence rates have improved from 2005 to 2017, high-volume academic programs were more likely to adhere to lymph node sampling guidelines for gastric cancer.

Enhancement and Implementation of a Health Information Technology Module to Improve the Discrete Capture of Cancer Staging in a Diverse Regional Health System.

PURPOSE: Cancer staging is the foundation for all cancer management decisions. For real-time use, stage must be embedded in the electronic health record as a discrete data element. The objectives of this quality improvement (QI) initiative were to (1) identify barriers to utilization of an existing discrete cancer staging module, (2) identify health information technology (HIT) solutions to support discrete capture of cancer staging data, and (3) increase capture across the oncology enterprise in our diverse health system. METHODS: Six sigma QI methodologies were used to define barriers and solutions to improve discrete cancer staging. Design thinking principles informed solution development to test prototypes. Two multidisciplinary teams of disease-specific clinicians within GI and genitourinary conducted phased testing pilots to determine health system solutions. Solutions were expanded to all oncology specialties across our health system. RESULTS: Baseline average discrete staging capture across our health system was 31%. Poor workflow efficiency, limited accountability, and technical design gaps were key barriers to timely, complete staging. Implementation of more than 25 design enhancements to a HIT solution and passive user alerts led to a postimplementation capture rate of 58% across 55 outpatient clinics involving more than 400 clinicians. CONCLUSION: We identified key barriers to discrete data capture and designed solutions through iterative use of QI methodologies and disease-specific pilots. After implementation, discrete capture of cancer staging nearly doubled across our diverse health system. This approach is scalable and transferable to other initiatives to develop and implement clinically relevant HIT solutions across a diverse health system.

Disparities in treatment and survival in early-stage hepatocellular carcinoma in California.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Curative intent therapy is the standard of care for early-stage hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). However, these therapies are under-utilized, with several treatment and survival disparities. We sought to demonstrate whether the type of facility and distance from treatment center (with transplant capabilities) contributed to disparities in curative-intent treatment and survival for early-stage HCC in California. METHODS: We performed a retrospective analysis of the California Cancer Registry for patients diagnosed with stage I or II primary HCC between 2005 and 2017. Primary and secondary outcomes were receipt of treatment and overall survival, respectively. Multivariable logistic regression and Multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression were used to evaluate associations. RESULTS: Of 19 059 patients with early-stage HCC, only 36% (6778) received curative-intent treatment. Compared to Non-Hispanic White patients, Hispanic patients were less likely, and Asian/Pacific Islander patients were more likely to receive curative-intent treatment. Our results showed that rural residence, public insurance, lower neighborhood SES, and care at non-National Cancer Institute-designated cancer center were associated with not receiving treatment and decreased survival. CONCLUSIONS: Although multiple factors influence receipt of treatment for early-HCC, our findings suggest that early intervention programs should target travel barriers and access to specialist care to help improve oncologic outcomes.

Evaluation of emergency department treat-and-release encounters after major gastrointestinal surgery.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Emergency department (ED) utilization after gastrointestinal cancer operations is poorly characterized. Our study objectives were to determine the incidence of, reasons for, and predictors of ED treat-and-release encounters after gastrointestinal cancer operations. METHODS: Patients who underwent elective esophageal, hepatobiliary, gastric, pancreatic, small intestinal, or colorectal operations for cancer were identified in the 2015-2017 Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project State Inpatient and State Emergency Department Databases for New York, Maryland, and Florida. The primary outcomes were the incidence of ED treat-and-release encounters and readmissions within 30 days of discharge. RESULTS: Among 51 527 patients at 406 hospitals, 4047 (7.9%) had an ED treat-and-release encounter, and 5573 (10.8%) had an ED encounter with readmission. In total, 40.7% of ED encounters were treat-and-release encounters. ED treat-and-release encounters were most frequently for pain (12.0%), device/ostomy complaints (11.7%), or wound complaints (11.4%). ED treat-and-release encounters predictors included non-Hispanic Black race/ethnicity (odds ratio [OR] 1.24, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.12-1.37) and Medicare (OR 1.27, 95% CI 1.16-1.40) or Medicaid (OR 1.82, 95% CI 1.62-2.40) coverage. CONCLUSIONS: ED treat-and-release encounters are common after major gastrointestinal operations, making up nearly half of postdischarge ED encounters. The reasons for ED treat-and-release encounters differ from those for ED encounters with readmissions.

Association of travel distance, surgical volume, and receipt of adjuvant chemotherapy with survival among patients with resectable lung cancer.

Objective: Regionalization of surgery for non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) to high-volume centers (HVCs) improves perioperative outcomes but frequently increases patient travel distance. Travel might decrease rates of adjuvant chemotherapy (AC) use, however, the relationship of distance, volume, and receipt of AC with outcomes is unknown. Our objective was to evaluate the association of distance, volume, and receipt of AC with overall survival among patients with NSCLC. Methods: Patients with stage I to IIIA (N0-N1) NSCLC were identified between 2004 and 2018 using the National Cancer Database. Distance to surgical facility was categorized into quartiles (<5.1, 5.1 to <11.5, 11.5 to <28.1, and ≥28.1 miles), and HVCs were defined as those that perform ≥40 annual resections. Patient characteristics and likelihood of receiving AC anywhere were determined. Propensity score-matched survival analysis was performed using Cox models and Kaplan-Meier curves. Results: Of the 131,982 patients included, 35,658 (27.0%) were stage II to IIIA. Of the stage II to IIIA cohort, 49.6% received AC, 13.1% traveled <5.1 miles to low-volume centers (LVCs), and 18.1% traveled ≥28.1 miles to HVCs (P < .001). Among stage II to IIIA patients who traveled ≥28.1 miles to HVCs, 45% received AC versus 51.5% who traveled <5.1 miles to LVCs (incidence rate ratio, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.83-0.94; <5.1 miles to LVC reference). Patients with stage II to IIIA NSCLC who traveled ≥28.1 miles to HVCs and did not receive AC had higher mortality rates than those who traveled <5.1 miles to LVCs and received AC (median overall survival, 52.3 vs 36.7 months; adjusted hazard ratio, 1.41; 95% CI, 1.26-1.57). Conclusions: Increasing travel distance to surgical treatment is associated with decreased likelihood of receiving AC for patients with stage II to IIIA (N0-N1) NSCLC.

Barriers and Facilitators to Implementing Patient-Reported Outcome Monitoring in Gastrointestinal Surgery.

INTRODUCTION: More than 30% of patients experience complications after major gastrointestinal (GI) surgery, many of which occur after discharge when patients and families must assume responsibility for monitoring. Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) have been proposed as a tool for remote monitoring to identify deviations in recovery, and recognize and manage complications earlier. This study's objective was to characterize barriers and facilitators to the use of PROs as a patient monitoring tool following GI surgery. METHODS: We conducted semistructured interviews with GI surgery patients and clinicians (surgeons, nurses, and advanced practitioners). Patients and clinicians were asked to describe their experience using a PRO monitoring system in three surgical oncology clinics. Using a phenomenological approach, research team dyads independently coded the transcripts using an inductively developed codebook and the constant comparative approach with differences reconciled by consensus. RESULTS: Ten patients and five clinicians participated in the interviews. We identified four overarching themes related to functionality, workflow, meaningfulness, and actionability. Functionality refers to barriers faced by clinicians and patients in using the PRO technology. Workflow represents problematic integration of PROs into the clinical workflow and need for setting expectations with patients. Meaningfulness refers to lack of patient and clinician understanding of the impact of PROs on patient care. Finally, actionability reflects barriers to follow-up and practical use of PRO data. CONCLUSIONS: While use of PRO systems for postoperative patient monitoring have expanded, significant barriers persist for both patients and clinicians. Implementation enhancements are needed to optimize functionality, workflow, meaningfulness, and actionability.