Experience of a single academic institution with the National Accreditation Program for Rectal Cancer and the resulting improvement in care.

AIM: The American College of Surgeons Committee on Cancer developed the National Accreditation Program for Rectal Cancer (NAPRC) to reduce variations in rectal cancer care, standardize clinical practice and encourage multidisciplinary approaches. The aim of this study was to analyse if accreditation achieved a higher quality of care at one hospital. METHOD: The University of California Davis Medical Center was accredited in 2019. A retrospective review of rectal adenocarcinoma patients was performed between the years 2013 and 2018. Patients presenting from 2013 to 2015 were discussed at a gastrointestinal tumour board while patients in 2018 had an accredited rectal cancer tumour board. Patients from 2016 to 2017 were excluded as the programme was still developing. Compliance to the NAPRC standards was compared between the cohorts. RESULTS: One hundred and thirty patients were evaluated, 88 (68%) in the prerectal tumour board cohort and 42 (32%) in the rectal tumour board cohort. The prerectal tumour board cohort often failed to meet attendance standards. All patients in the rectal tumour board cohort met all criteria. Similarly, clinical service compliance improved in the rectal tumour board cohort for 13 metrics, 10 of which were statistically significant. Although a high proportion of patients in both groups experienced quality surgery, i.e. complete total mesorectal excision and negative margins, the lack of complete pathological reporting in the prerectal tumour board cohort limited analysis. CONCLUSION: Multidisciplinary rectal cancer tumour boards are associated with improved compliance with recommended care by the NAPRC. Patients discussed at a rectal cancer tumour board were more likely to receive appropriate staging, coordinated care and have better clinical documentation.

The long weight: association between distressed communities index and long-term weight outcomes following bariatric surgery.

BACKGROUND: Socioeconomic status (SES) is multifactorial, and its effect on post-bariatric weight recurrence is unclear. Distressed Community Index (DCI) is a composite SES score measuring community economic well-being. This study aims to evaluate the effect of DCI on long-term post-bariatric weight outcomes. METHODS: Retrospective analysis of patients undergoing primary laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass or sleeve gastrectomy between 2015 and 2020 was performed. All weights in the electronic medical record (EMR), including non-bariatric visits, were captured. Patients were stratified into low tier (LT) and high tier (HT) DCI groups. RESULTS: Of 583 patients, 431 (73.9%) were HT and 152 (26.1%) were LT. Average bariatric follow up was 1.78 ± 1.6 years and average postoperative weight in the EMR was 3.96 ± 2.26 years. Rates of bariatric follow up within the last year were similar (13.8% LT vs 16.2% HT, p = 0.47). LT had higher percent total body weight loss (%TWL; 26% LT vs 23% HT, p < 0.01) and percent excess weight loss (%EWL; 62% vs 57%, p = 0.04) at 1 year on univariate analysis. On multivariate linear regression adjusting for baseline characteristics and surgery type, there were no differences in %EWL between groups at 1 year (p = 0.22), ≥ 3 years (p = 0.53) or ≥ 5 years (p = 0.34) postop. While on univariate analysis LT only trended towards greater percentage of patients with > 15% increase from their 1-year weight (33.3% LT vs 21.0% HT, p = 0.06), on multivariate analysis this difference was significant (OR 2.0, LT 95%CI 1.41-2.84). There were no differences in the percentage of patients with > 15% decrease in %EWL from 1 to 3 + years postop between groups (OR 0.98, LT 95% CI 0.72-1.35). CONCLUSIONS: While low tier patients had similar weight loss at 1 year, they were twice as likely to have weight recurrence at ≥ 3 years. Further studies are needed to identify factors contributing to greater weight recurrence among this population.

Elderly Age Is Associated With More Conservative Treatment of Invasive Melanoma.

BACKGROUND/AIM: Competing mortality risks complicate treatment of elderly melanoma patients potentially leading to conservative management, including no sentinel lymph node biopsy. As systemic immunotherapy offers justification for nodal evaluation, we examined treatment trends among elderly melanoma patients. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We performed a National Cancer Database analysis of melanoma patients from 2004-2015. Patients were categorized by age (elderly ≥80-years-old). Multivariable logistic regression analyses were performed comparing characteristics and treatment by age. RESULTS: Of 187,814 patients, 2.7% were 1-25, 11.6% were 26-40, 46.6% were 41-64, 28.8% were 65-79, and 10.3% were ≥80-years-old with clinicopathologic and treatment differences between age cohorts. Nodal surgery was least common among elderly patients (43.1% vs. 60.7-69.8%, p<0.0001). For stage III, immunotherapy was least common among the elderly (p<0.0001), but associated with greater survival (HR=0.52, 95%CI=0.32-0.84, p=0.008). CONCLUSION: Elderly melanoma patients were often treated conservatively, including no nodal evaluation, concerning for the potential undertreatment of this population.