Breast Cancer Recurrence by Subtype in a Diverse, Contemporary Cohort of Young Women.

BACKGROUND: Young breast cancer (YBC) patients are a unique subpopulation that are often underrepresented in randomized clinical trials. Furthermore, large national cancer databases lack detailed information on recurrence, a meaningful oncologic outcome for young patients. STUDY DESIGN: A retrospective review of YBC patients (age 40 years or younger) with stage I to III breast cancer diagnosed from 2008 to 2018 was performed. Information on clinicopathologic characteristics, demographics, and outcomes was obtained from the electronic health record and chart review. Chi-square and Fisher's exact tests were used for comparisons of categorical variables and parametric and nonparametric tests for continuous variables. RESULTS: The cohort included 1,431 women with a median follow-up of 4.8 years (range 0.3 to 12.9 years). The median age was 37 years (interquartile range 34 to 39). The study population included 598 (41.8%) White, 112 (7.8%) Black, 420 (29.4%) Asian/Pacific Islander, 281 (19.6%) Hispanic, and 20 (1.4%) "other" race/ethnicity patients. Tumor subtype was as follows: [1] hormone receptor (HR) + /human epidermal growth factor 2 (HER2 - ), grade (G) 1 to 2 = 541 (37.8%); [2] HR + /HER2 - , G3 = 268 (18.7%); [3] HR + /HER2 + = 262 (18.3%); [4] HR - /HER2 + = 101 (7.1%); [5] HR - /HER2 - = 259 (18.1%). The majority (64.2%) presented with stage II/III disease. There were 230 (16.1%) recurrences during follow-up; 74.8% were distant. Locoregional-only recurrence was seen in 17 of 463 (3.7%) patients who underwent breast conservation vs 41 of 968 (4.2%) patients undergoing mastectomy (p < 0.001). Recurrence varied by tumor subtype: [1] HR + /HER2 - , G1 to 2 (14.0%); [2] HR + /HER2 - , G3 (20.9%); [3] HR + /HER2 + (11.1%); [4] HR - /HER2 + (22.8%); [5] HR - /HER2 - (17.8%) (p = 0.005). CONCLUSIONS: In this large, diverse YBC cohort, recurrences were most frequent among HR + /HER2 - , G3, or HR - /HER2 + invasive tumors; most were distant. There were numerically similar locoregional-only recurrences after breast conservation vs mastectomy. Additional research is needed to identify predictors of recurrence.

Association of Standardized Radiology Reporting and Management of Abdominal CT and MRI With Diagnosis of Pancreatic Cancer.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Follow-up of abdominal computed tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) findings suspicious for pancreatic cancer may be delayed if documentation is unclear. We evaluated whether standardized reporting and follow-up of imaging results reduced time to diagnosis of pancreatic cancer. METHODS: We used a quasi-experimental stepped-wedge cluster design to evaluate the effectiveness of newly implemented radiology reporting system. The system standardizes the reporting of CT and MRI reports using hashtags that classify pancreatic findings. The system also automates referral of patients with findings suspicious for pancreatic cancer to a multidisciplinary care team for rapid review and follow-up. The study examined 318,331 patients who underwent CT or MRI that included the abdomen from 2016 through 2019 who had not had an eligible CT or MRI in the preceding 24 months. We evaluated the association of the intervention with incidence of pancreatic cancer within 60 days and 120 days after imaging. RESULTS: Thirty-eight percent of patients received the intervention, and 1523 patients (0.48%) were diagnosed with pancreatic cancer. In multivariable analysis accounting for age, race/ethnicity, sex, Charlson comorbidity, history of cancer, diabetes, and 4-month calendar period, the intervention was associated with nearly 50% greater odds of diagnosing pancreatic cancer within 60 days (adjusted odds ratio, 1.47; 95% confidence interval, 1.05-2.06) and 120 days (adjusted odds ratio, 1.46; 95% confidence interval, 1.04-2.06). CONCLUSIONS: In this large quasi-experimental, community-based observational study, implementing standardized reporting of abdominal CT and MRI reports with clinical navigation was effective for increasing the detection and diagnosis of pancreatic cancer.

Telehealth for Preoperative Evaluation of Patients With Breast Cancer During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

Introduction The COVID-19 pandemic drove rapid, widespread adoption of telehealth (TH). We evaluated surgical telehealth utilization and outcomes for newly diagnosed breast cancer patients during the initial pandemic period. Methods We identified patients with breast cancer diagnosed March 17, 2020 through May 17, 2020 who underwent surgery as the initial treatment. Clinicodemographic characteristics were collected. Initial consultation types (office, telephone, or video) were categorized. Outcomes included time to consultation, surgeon touchpoints, time to surgery, surgery types, and reexcision rates. Continuous variables were compared using Mann-Whitney tests or t-tests, and categorical variables were compared using χ2 or Fisher's exact tests. Results Of 158 patients, 56% had initial telehealth consultations (21% telephone, 35% video) and 42% did not have a preoperative physical examination. Age, race/ethnicity, and stage distributions were similar between initial visit types. Median time to consultation was lower in the initial telehealth group than the office group (6 days vs 9 days, p = 0.01). Other outcomes (surgeon touchpoints, time to surgery, surgery type, reconstruction) were similar between visit types. We observed higher reexcision rates in patients with initial telehealth visits (20% telehealth vs 4% office, p = 0.01), but evaluation was limited by small numbers. The reexcision rate was 13% for patients with telehealth visits and no preoperative physical exam. Discussion During the initial pandemic period, the majority of new breast cancer patients had an initial telehealth surgical consultation. Office and telehealth consultation visits had comparable numbers of postconsultation surgeon touchpoints and most outcomes. Our findings suggest that telehealth consultations may be feasible for preoperative breast cancer consultations.

Economic Impact of Reducing Reexcision Rates after Breast-Conserving Surgery in a Large, Integrated Health System.

BACKGROUND: Reexcision after breast-conserving surgery (BCS) is costly for patients, but few studies have captured the economic burden to a healthcare system. We quantified operating room (OR) charges as well as OR time and then modeled expected savings of a reexcision reduction initiative. METHODS: We performed a retrospective cohort review of all breast cancer patients with BCS between January 1, 2016 and December 31, 2020. Operating room charges of disposable supplies and implants as well as operative time were calculated. RESULTS: During the 5-year period, the 8804 patients who underwent BCS, 1628 (18.5%) required reexcision. The reexcision cohort was younger (61 vs. 64 years, p < 0.001), more likely to have ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) (23.7% vs. 15.2%, p < 0.001), and had larger tumors (T1+T2 73.2% vs. 83.1%, p < 0.001). Reexcision costs represented 39% of total costs, the cost per patient for surgery was fourfold higher for reexcision patients. Reexcision operations comprised 14% of total operating room (OR) time (1848 of 13,030 hours). The reexcision rate for 54 surgeons varied from 7.2-39.0% with 46% (n = 25) having a reexcision rate >20%. A model simulating reducing reexcision rates to 20% or below for all surgeons reduced the reexcision rate to 16.2% overall. Using per procedure data, the model predicted a decrease in reexcision operations by 18% (327 operations), OR costs by 14% ($287,534), and OR time by 11% (204 hours). CONCLUSIONS: Reexcision after BCS represents 39% of direct OR costs and 14% of OR time in our healthcare system. Modest improvements in surgeon reexcision rates may lead to significant economic and OR time savings.

Home Recovery After Mastectomy: Review of Literature and Strategies for Implementation American Society of Breast Surgeons Working Group.

BACKGROUND: Practices regarding recovery after mastectomy vary significantly, including overnight stay versus discharge same day. Expanded use of Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) algorithms and the recent COVID pandemic have led to increased number of patients who undergo home recovery after mastectomy (HRAM). METHODS: The Patient Safety Quality Committee of the American Society of Breast Surgeons created a multispecialty working group to review the literature evaluating HRAM after mastectomy with and without implant-based reconstruction. A literature review was performed regarding this topic; the group then developed guidance for patient selection and tools for implementation. RESULTS: Multiple, retrospective series have reported that patients discharged day of mastectomy have similar risk of complications compared with those kept overnight, including risk of hematoma (0-5.1%). Multimodal strategies that improve nausea and analgesia improve likelihood of HRAM. Patients who undergo surgery in ambulatory surgery centers and by high-volume breast surgeons are more likely to be discharged day of surgery. When evaluating unplanned return to care, the only significant factors are African American race and increased comorbidities. CONCLUSIONS: Review of current literature demonstrates that HRAM is a safe option in appropriate patients. Choice of method of recovery should consider patient factors, such as comorbidities and social situation, and requires input from the multidisciplinary team. Preoperative education regarding pain management, drain care, and after-hour access to medical care are crucial components to a successful program. Additional investigation is needed as these programs become more prevalent to assess quality measures such as unplanned return to care, complications, and patient satisfaction.

Care in the time of COVID-19: impact on the diagnosis and treatment of breast cancer in a large, integrated health care system.

PURPOSES: To delineate operational changes in Kaiser Permanente Northern California breast care and evaluate the impact of these changes during the initial COVID-19 Shelter-in-Place period (SiP, 3/17/20-5/17/20). METHODS: By extracting data from institutional databases and reviewing electronic medical charts, we compared clinical and treatment characteristics of breast cancer patients diagnosed 3/17/20-5/17/20 to those diagnosed 3/17/19-5/17/2019. Outcomes included time from biopsy to consultation and treatment. Comparisons were made using Chi-square or Wilcoxon rank-sum tests. RESULTS: Fewer new breast cancers were diagnosed in 2020 during the SiP period than during a similar period in 2019 (n = 247 vs n = 703). A higher percentage presented with symptomatic disease in 2020 than 2019 (78% vs 37%, p < 0.001). Higher percentages of 2020 patients presented with grade 3 (37% vs 25%, p = 0.004) and triple-negative tumors (16% vs 10%, p = 0.04). A smaller percentage underwent surgery first in 2020 (71% vs 83%, p < 0.001) and a larger percentage had neoadjuvant chemotherapy (16% vs 11%, p < 0.001). Telehealth utilization increased from 0.8% in 2019 to 70.0% in 2020. Times to surgery and neoadjuvant chemotherapy were shorter in 2020 than 2019 (19 vs 26 days, p < 0.001, and 23 vs 28 days, p = 0.03, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: During SiP, fewer breast cancers were diagnosed than during a similar period in 2019, and a higher proportion presented with symptomatic disease. Early-stage breast cancer diagnoses decreased, while metastatic cancer diagnoses remained similar. Telehealth increased significantly, and times to treatment were shorter in 2020 than 2019. Our system continued to provide timely breast cancer treatment despite significant pandemic-driven disruption.

Implementation of Intraoperative Ultrasound Localization for Breast-Conserving Surgery in a Large, Integrated Health Care System is Feasible and Effective.

BACKGROUND: Intraoperative ultrasound (IUS) localization for breast cancer is a noninvasive localization technique. In 2015, an IUS program for breast-conserving surgery (BCS) was initiated in a large, integrated health care system. This study evaluated the clinical results of IUS implementation. METHODS: The study identified breast cancer patients with BCS from 1 January to 31 October 2015 and from 1 January to 31 October 2019. Clinicopathologic characteristics were collected, and localization types were categorized. Clinical outcomes were analyzed, including localization use, surgeon adoption of IUS, day-of-surgery intervals, and re-excision rates. Multivariate logistic regression analysis was performed to evaluate predictors of re-excision. RESULTS: The number of BCS procedures increased 23%, from 1815 procedures in 2015 to 2226 procedures in 2019. The IUS rate increased from 4% of lumpectomies (n = 79) in 2015 to 28% of lumpectomies (n = 632) in 2019 (p < 0.001). Surgeons using IUS increased from 6% (5 of 88 surgeons) in 2015 to 70% (42 of 60 surgeons) in 2019. In 2019, 76% of IUS surgeons performed at least 25% of lumpectomies with IUS. The mean time from admission to incision was shorter with IUS or seed localization than with wire localization (202 min with IUS, 201 with seed localization, 262 with wire localization in 2019; p < 0.001). The IUS re-excision rates were lower than for other localization techniques (13.6%, vs 19.6% for seed localization and 24.7% for wire localization in 2019; p = 0.006), and IUS predicted lower re-excision rates in a multivariable model (odds ratio [OR], 0.59). CONCLUSIONS: In a high-volume integrated health system, IUS was adopted for BCS by a majority of surgeons. The use of IUS decreased the time from admission to incision compared with wire localization, and decreased re-excision rates compared with other localization techniques.

Outpatient Mastectomy: Factors Influencing Patient Selection and Predictors of Return to Care.

BACKGROUND: After implementation of the Surgical Home Recovery (SHR) initiative for mastectomy within a large, integrated health delivery system, most patients are discharged on the day of the procedure. We sought to identify predictors of SHR and unplanned return to care (RTC). STUDY DESIGN: Mastectomy cases with and without reconstruction from October 2017 to August 2019 were analyzed. Patient characteristics, operative variables, and multimodal pain management were compared between admitted patients and SHR patients using logistic regression. We identified predictors of RTC in SHR patients, defined as 7-day readmission, reoperation, or emergency department visit. RESULTS: Of 2,648 mastectomies, 1,689 (64%) were outpatient procedures and the mean age of patients was 58.5 years. Predictors of SHR included perioperative IV acetaminophen (odds ratio [OR] 1.59; 95% CI, 1.28 to 1.97), perioperative opiates (OR 1.47; 95% CI, 1.06 to 2.02), and operation performed by a high-volume breast surgeon (OR 2.12; 95% CI, 1.42 to 3.18). Bilateral mastectomies (OR 0.70; 95% CI, 0.54 to 0.91), immediate reconstruction (OR 0.52; 95% CI, 0.39 to 0.70), and American Society of Anesthesiologists class 3 to 4 (OR 0.69; 95% CI, 0.54 to 0.87) decreased the odds of SHR. Of SHR patients, 111 of 1,689 patients (7%) experienced RTC. Patients with American Society of Anesthesiologists class 3 to 4 (OR 2.01; 95% CI, 1.29 to 3.14) and African American race (OR 2.30; 95% CI, 1.38 to 4.91) were more likely to RTC; receiving IV acetaminophen (OR 0.56; 95% CI, 0.35 to 0.88) and filling an opiate prescription (OR 0.51; 95% CI, 0.34 to 0.77) decreased the odds of RTC. CONCLUSIONS: Surgeon volume and multimodal pain medication increased the odds of SHR. Within the SHR group, American Society of Anesthesiologists Class 3 to 4 and African American patients increased the likelihood of RTC. This study helps optimize patient selection and perioperative practice for successful SHR.

Adoption of Opioid-Sparing and Non-Opioid Regimens After Breast Surgery in a Large, Integrated Health Care Delivery System.

BACKGROUND: Postoperative prescriptions have contributed to the opioid epidemic. In response, a large, integrated health care delivery system implemented initiatives to reduce outpatient opioid prescriptions. We evaluated the impact of these interventions on opioid-prescribing practices after breast surgery. METHODS: We examined postoperative prescribing practices before and after the 2016-2018 intervention period. Primary endpoints were the use of non-opioid regimens (NORs) and morphine milligram equivalents (MMEs) prescribed for postoperative pain management, while secondary endpoints were emergency department (ED) visits and readmissions within 7 days of surgery. RESULTS: In a survey of breast surgeons, 23% reported using NORs in 2017 versus 79% in 2019 (p < 0.001). Comparing 1917 breast operations from 2016 with 2166 operations from 2019, NORs increased from 9% in 2016 to 39% in 2019 (p < 0.001). Average discharge MMEs per operation decreased from 190 in 2016 to 106 in 2019 (p < 0.001). NOR failure (defined as an additional opioid prescription within 2 weeks of surgery) was < 1%. Significantly fewer postoperative ED visits occurred in the NOR group (1.9% NOR vs. 3.4% opioid regimen [OR]; p < 0.001). The 7-day readmission rates for NOR and OR patients were similar (0.49% NOR vs. 0.32% OR; p = 0.45). CONCLUSION: Between 2016 and 2019, breast surgeons in a large, integrated health care delivery system adopted NORs for nearly 40% of breast operations, and prescribed significantly fewer MMEs, with no increases in ED visits or readmissions for NOR patients. This suggests that initiatives to decrease opioid prescribing were successful and that a NOR for pain management after breast surgery is feasible.

Implementation of a Post-mastectomy Home Recovery Program in a Large, Integrated Health Care Delivery System.

BACKGROUND: The number of outpatient mastectomies, with and without reconstruction, has increased nationwide. In well-selected patient populations, same-day surgery for mastectomy is a safe option. A pilot project was initiated within the Kaiser Permanente Northern California healthcare system to facilitate surgical home recovery (SHR) for mastectomy patients, including patients undergoing implant-based reconstruction and bilateral mastectomies. METHODS: Surgical home recovery for mastectomy patients was implemented in October 2017. Specific measures in this initiative included management of patient expectations at initial consultation, education about postoperative home care, multimodality pain management, and timely post-discharge follow-up. All patients undergoing mastectomy were included, except those undergoing autologous tissue reconstructions. After a 6-month implementation period, rate of same day discharge over 6 months was compared before and after the SHR initiative. We also compared emergency department (ED) visits, reoperations, and readmissions within 7 days. RESULTS: Twenty-one medical centers participated in this initiative. Before implementing SHR, 164 of the 717 (23%) mastectomies were outpatient procedures, compared with 403 of the 663 (61%) after the implementation period. Although the rate of outpatient mastectomy increased significantly, there were no statistically significant differences in ED visits (5.2% vs. 5.1%, p = 0.98), reoperation (3.5% vs. 3.5%, p = 0.99), or readmission rates (1.4% vs. 2.7%, p = 0.08). CONCLUSIONS: By implementing standard expectations and sharing best practices, there was a significant increase in the rate of home recovery for mastectomy without compromising quality of patient care. The success of this pilot program supports SHR for mastectomy.

Evaluating patterns of utilization of gene signature panels and impact on treatment patterns in patients with ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast.

BACKGROUND: Broad patterns of use of the gene signature panel Oncotype DX DCIS and its large-scale impact on postoperative administration of radiation therapy in women with ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast remain unclear. This study sought to evaluate the patterns of use of this gene signature panel in women with ductal carcinoma in situ and the impact of these tools on postoperative radiation therapy administration. METHODS: The National Cancer Database was queried for women with ductal carcinoma in situ treated with breast-conserving therapy who had information regarding whether a gene signature panel was performed between 2010 and 2015. Demographic characteristics, the characteristics of their ductal carcinoma in situ, and whether they received postoperative radiation therapy were compared among patients who did have a gene signature panel performed and those who did not. Patterns of radiation therapy administration were also evaluated based on the recurrence risk score by the gene signature panel. RESULTS: Gene signature panel use increased over time, with a sharp increase in utilization occurring in 2015 (8.0% in 2015 vs 4.4% in 2014, P < .001). Patients with estrogen receptor-positive ductal carcinoma in situ were somewhat more likely to have a gene signature panel ordered (3.9% estrogen receptor positive vs 1.7% estrogen receptor negative, P < .001), as were patients with lower-grade ductal carcinoma in situ (4.5% grade I/II vs 3.1% grade III, P < .001). Gene signature panel utilization was associated with a decrease in the administration of postoperative radiation therapy (48.6% gene signature panel vs 83.4% no gene signature panel, P < .001). Among patients in whom a gene signature panel was performed, postoperative radiation therapy was administered in 81.9%, 72.0%, and 35.9% of patients with high-, intermediate-, and low-recurrence scores, respectively. CONCLUSION: Gene signature panel use in patients with ductal carcinoma in situ has increased over time and is more commonly used in women with lower-risk, clinicopathologic features to determine the magnitude of benefit afforded by radiation therapy. Gene signature panel use is associated with decreased rates of postoperative radiation therapy administration, particularly among patients with scores suggesting a low rate of recurrence.

Can high-volume teams of anesthesiologists and surgeons decrease perioperative costs for pancreatic surgery?

BACKGROUND: Pancreatic surgery outcomes are associated with surgeon and center experience. Anesthesiologists as potential value drivers for pancreatic surgery have not been explored. We sought to evaluate whether anesthesiologists impact perioperative costs for pancreatic surgery. METHODS: Within an integrated health care system, 796 pancreatic surgeries (526 PDs and 270 DPs) were performed from January 2014 to June 2017. Mean direct operative and anesthesia costs driven by anesthesiologists (operating room (OR) time, anesthesia billing and anesthesia procedures) were determined for each case. The volumes of pancreatic cases per anesthesiologist were calculated, and those above the 75th percentile for volume (4 cases) were considered high-volume. A multivariable analysis of OR/anesthesia costs was performed. RESULTS: Mean OR and anesthesia costs for PD were $7064 for low-volume anesthesiologists (LVA), higher than $5968 for high-volume anesthesiologists (HVA) (p < 0.001). By multivariable analysis, HVA were associated with decreased costs of $2278 (p < 0.001). Teams of HVA and high-volume surgeons (HVS) were also associated with decreased mean costs of $1790 (p = 0.04). CONCLUSION: These data suggest that anesthesiologists experienced in the management of complex pancreatic operations such as PDs may contribute to improved efficiencies in care by reducing perioperative costs.

Correlation Between Clinical and Pathologic Staging in Colon Cancer: Implications for Neoadjuvant Treatment.

BACKGROUND: Recent randomized trials suggest improved outcomes in patients with locally advanced colon cancer (LACC) treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC). Optimal selection of patients for NAC depends on accurate clinical staging. The purpose of this study was to examine the degree of correlation between clinical and pathologic staging in patients with colon cancer (CC). METHODS: Adult patients with non-metastatic CC who underwent surgery were identified from the National Cancer Data Base between 2006 and 2014. Data on clinical and pathologic staging was obtained. Kappa index was used to determine the correlation between clinical and pathologic staging. RESULTS: One hundred five thousand five hundred sixty-nine patients were identified. The overall correlation rate between clinical and pathologic staging for T stage was 80% (kappa 0.7) and 83% for N stage (kappa 0.6). The correlation rate was 54% for T1, 76% for T2, 95% for T3, and 94% for T4 (P < 0.001). This compared with 81% for N0, 82% for N1, and 97% for N2 (P < 0.001). The sensitivity and specificity of clinical staging for identifying T3/T4 vs T1/T2 were 80 and 98%, respectively, compared to 60 and 98% for N1/N2 vs N0 (P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that current modalities used for clinical staging are accurate in predicting pathologic stage for advanced but not early T and N disease. Further optimization of clinical staging is essential for the accurate selection of patients who may benefit from neoadjuvant therapy and to avoid overtreatment of low-risk patients.

What Are the Most Significant Cost and Value Drivers for Pancreatic Resection in an Integrated Healthcare System?

BACKGROUND: An initiative was established to improve value-based care for pancreatic surgery in a large nonprofit health system. Cost data were presented bimonthly to a hepatobiliary clinical performance group via videoconference. STUDY DESIGN: The direct costs were calculated for all patients undergoing distal pancreatectomy (DP) and pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) between January 2014 and July 2017. Median length of stay, 30-day and 90-day mortality rates, readmission rate, and costs were stratified by surgeon volume using 2 published criteria: "volume pledge" criteria (≥5 PDs/year) and Leapfrog criteria (≥11 PDs/year). RESULTS: There were 270 DPs and 526 PDs performed in 14 hospitals spanning 4 states. Median PD costs were lower for high-volume surgeons (≥5 PDs/year), $21,026 vs $24,706 (p = 0.005). High-volume surgeons had a shorter length of stay (9 days vs 11 days; p < 0.001) for PD and DP (6 days vs 7 days; p = 0.001). Increased costs for low-volume surgeons included operative/anesthesia costs ($7,321 vs $6,325; p = 0.03), room and board ($5,828 vs $4,580; p = 0.01), and intensive care costs ($4,464 vs $3,113; p = 0.04). Operating time was increased for high-volume surgeons for DP and PD (p < 0.001). There was no difference in 30-day or 90-day mortality rates or readmissions for DP or PD when stratified by volume pledge criteria. There was no difference in total costs for DP or PD when stratified by Leapfrog criteria. CONCLUSIONS: There was a significant cost reduction for PD but not DP when the threshold of 5 PDs was used as a definition of high volume. The sharing of detailed financial data with HPB surgeons on a regular basis provides an opportunity to evaluate practice patterns and thereby reduce direct costs.

Current Imaging Modalities Understage One-Third of Patients with Stage I Rectal Cancer: Implications for Treatment Selection.

Accurate preoperative clinical staging is essential to optimize the treatment of rectal cancer. Primary surgical resection is typically indicated for stage I disease, whereas neoadjuvant therapy is recommended for stages II and III. The objective of this study is to examine the accuracy of clinical staging using current imaging modalities in predicting pathologic stage and, thus, selecting appropriate treatment. Adult patients with nonmetastatic rectal cancer who underwent primary surgical resection were identified from the National Cancer Database between 2006 and 2014. Data on clinical and pathologic staging was obtained. Kappa index was used to determine the correlation between clinical and pathologic staging. A total of 13,175 patients were identified. The correlation between clinical and pathologic staging was 69 per cent for stage I (31% upstaged) (Kappa 0.54, P < 0.001). One-third of patients who were clinically staged as stage I, and were therefore treated with primary surgical resection, had pathologic stage II or III disease. Based on their clinical staging, those patients did not receive the neoadjuvant therapy recommended by present guidelines. Where accurate clinical staging is in doubt, oncologists should carefully examine the quality of staging modality and perhaps consider multimodal imaging using both endorectal ultrasound and MRI.

Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy Improves Survival in Patients with Clinical T4b Colon Cancer.

BACKGROUND: In 2016, the National Comprehensive Cancer Network included neoadjuvant chemotherapy as a treatment option for patients with clinical T4b colon cancer. However, there is little published data on the survival impact of neoadjuvant chemotherapy for locally advanced colon cancer. METHODS: Adult patients with non-metastatic clinically staged T3 or T4 colon cancer who underwent surgical resection were identified from the National Cancer Data Base between 2006 and 2014. Treatment was categorized as neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by surgery and surgery followed by adjuvant chemotherapy. Overall survival was compared between the two groups using propensity score matching. RESULTS: Of 27,575 patients that met inclusion criteria, 26,654 (97%) were treated with surgery followed by adjuvant chemotherapy and 921 (3%) received neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by surgery. After propensity score matching, patients with T4b colon cancer treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy had a 23% lower risk of death at 3 years compared to patients that had adjuvant chemotherapy (HR 0.77, 95% CI 0.60-0.98; p = 0.04). However, neoadjuvant chemotherapy did not demonstrate a similar significant benefit for patients with T3 and T4a disease. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with clinical T4b colon cancer treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy may have an improved survival compared to those who receive adjuvant chemotherapy. Further prospective investigation is warranted.

Survival Analysis with Extended Lymphadenectomy for Gastric Cancer: Removing Stage Migration from the Equation.

The survival benefit of an extended versus standard lymphadenectomy for gastric cancer (GC) is often attributed to upstaging when more lymph nodes (LNs) are removed, i.e., stage migration. An extended lymphadenectomy is defined as 30 or more LNs examined, a surrogate for a D2 dissection. The aim of this study is to examine whether the survival benefit of extended lymphadenectomy persists when stage migration is not possible. The National Cancer Data Base was queried to identify patients with pathologic N3 (pN3, ≥7 positive LNs) gastric adenocarcinoma. Overall survival (OS) was compared by extent of lymphadenectomy (7-14, 15-29, and ≥30 LN) and stratified by T stage. Of 2101 pN3 patients, 419 (19.9%) had 7 to 14 LNs examined, 1164 (55.4%) had 15 to 29 LNs examined, and 518 (24.7%) had ≥30 LNs examined. Unadjusted three-year OS in the entire cohort was 24.6, 27.3, 30.5 per cent for 7 to 14 LNs, 15 to 29 LNs, and ≥30 LNs, respectively (P = 0.003). On adjusted survival analysis by stage for patients with pT1-T2N3 disease, removing ≥30 LNs significantly improved OS compared with removing 7 to 14 LNs (hazard ratio [HR] 2.45, 95% confidence interval = 1.25-4.82, P = 0.009). Extended lymphadenectomy may confer a survival benefit in select patients with pT1N3 and pT2N3 GC, highlighting the importance of the number of LNs examined rather than stage migration on survival. For the majority of the N3 population, pT3-pT4, the extent of lymphadenectomy did not significantly improve the OS.

Robotic Minor Hepatectomy Offers a Favorable Learning Curve and May Result in Superior Perioperative Outcomes Compared with Laparoscopic Approach.

Minorhepatectomy (MH) is a common type of robotic-assisted liver resection, but few studies compared it with laparoscopic. We compared the perioperative outcomes of patients who underwent robotic (RH) or laparoscopic (LH) minor hepatectomy and evaluated the effect of surgeon's experience on outcomes. A prospective database was used to identify patients from 2009 through 2016 who underwent RH or LH. Two surgeons performed RH starting in 2014, whereas LH had been established before that. Of the 93 patients, 42 were in RH and 51 in LH group. The mean patient age, gender, race, American Society of Anesthesiologists score, proportion of patients with cirrhosis and hepatocellular carcinoma were similar. Operative time, estimated blood loss (EBL), conversion to open, 30-day complication rate, Clavien-Dindo grade ≥ 3 complications, and length of hospital stay (LOS) were similar. There was no difference in average tumor size, specimen volume, or achievement of R0 margin. In RH group, after completing 15 cases, there were no conversions to open. After 25 cases, EBL, LOS, and 30-day complication rate were improved as compared with LH. Perioperative outcomes of robotic MH are equivalent to laparoscopic. After approximately 25 cases, robotic-assisted MH may result in superior outcomes compared with laparoscopic.