Implementation of a regional virtual tumor board: a prospective study evaluating feasibility and provider acceptance.

BACKGROUND: Tumor board (TB) conferences facilitate multidisciplinary cancer care and are associated with overall improved outcomes. Because of shortages of the oncology workforce and limited access to TB conferences, multidisciplinary care is not available at every institution. This pilot study assessed the feasibility and acceptance of using telemedicine to implement a virtual TB (VTB) program within a regional healthcare network. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The VTB program was implemented through videoconference technology and electronic medical records between the Houston (TX) Veterans Affairs Medical Center (VAMC) (referral center) and the New Orleans (LA) VAMC (referring center). Feasibility was assessed as the proportion of completed VTB encounters, rate of technological failures/mishaps, and presentation duration. Validated surveys for confidence and satisfaction were administered to 36 TB participants to assess acceptance (1-5 point Likert scale). Secondary outcomes included preliminary data on VTB utilization and its effectiveness in providing access to quality cancer care within the region. RESULTS: Ninety TB case presentations occurred during the study period, of which 14 (15%) were VTB cases. Although one VTB encounter had a technical mishap during presentation, all scheduled encounters were completed (100% completion rate). Case presentations took longer for VTB than for regular TB cases (p=0.0004). However, VTB was highly accepted with mean scores for satisfaction and confidence of 4.6. Utilization rate of VTB was 75%, and its effectiveness was equivalent to that observed for non-VTB cases. CONCLUSIONS: Implementation of VTB is feasible and highly accepted by its participants. Future studies should focus on widespread implementation and validating the effectiveness of this model.

Hand-assisted laparoscopy leads to efficient colorectal cancer surgery.

BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic-assisted (LA) colorectal resections have improved short-term outcomes compared with open resections. Lack of tactile feedback, though, has led to lengthy operations and high conversion rates with attendant adverse effects on patients. Hand-assisted laparoscopy (HAL), in contrast, provides tactile feedback while still being minimally invasive. We hypothesize that HAL compared with LA for colorectal cancer resections will be associated with lower conversion rates and decreased operative times, without compromising the advantages of laparoscopy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We performed a retrospective case-matched study of patients undergoing LA or HAL colorectal cancer resections from 2002 to 2010, using a prospectively maintained colorectal cancer database at a Veterans Affairs Medical Center. Short-term outcomes analyzed (using the Wilcoxon signed rank and McNemar's tests) included operative and perioperative variables and surrogate markers of adequacy of oncologic care. RESULTS: Forty-seven LA patients were matched 1:1 by age and resection with 47 HAL patients. Patients in the HAL group had significantly lower blood loss (100 versus 150 cc, P = 0.04), operative times (206 versus 252 min, P = 0.002), and conversion rates (6% versus 38%, P < 0.0005). They also spent fewer days in the intensive care unit (0 versus 1, P = 0.004) and had quicker return of flatus (3 versus 4 d, P = 0.03). HAL resulted in more lymph nodes resected (21 versus 15, P = 0.03) and a more adequate lymph node harvest (98% versus 77%, P = 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: HAL is associated with improved operative efficiency, conversion rates, and lymphadenectomy as compared with LA colorectal cancer resections. HAL should be considered in the management of colorectal cancer patients.

Clinical outcomes of oncologic gastrointestinal resections in patients with cirrhosis.

BACKGROUND: Cirrhosis is a risk factor for postoperative morbidity and mortality after general surgical procedures. However, the impact of cirrhosis on outcomes of surgical resection for gastrointestinal (GI) malignancies has not been described. The authors' objective was to characterize early postoperative and transitional outcomes in cirrhotic patients undergoing GI cancer surgery. METHODS: Query of the National Inpatient Sample Database (2005-2008) identified 106,729 patients who underwent resection for GI malignancy; 1479 (1.4%) had cirrhosis. The association of cirrhosis with postoperative outcomes was examined. The primary outcome measure was in-hospital mortality. Secondary outcomes included length-of-stay (LOS) and discharge to long-term care facility (LTCF). RESULTS: Cirrhotic patients had higher risk of in-hospital mortality (8.9% vs 2.8%, P < .001), longer LOS (11.5 ± 0.26 vs 10.0 ± 0.03 days, P < .001), and higher rate of discharge to LTCF (19.0% vs 15.7%, P < .001). Mortality was highest in patients with moderate to severe liver dysfunction (21.5% vs 6.5%, P < .001). On multivariate analysis, cirrhosis was an independent predictor of in-hospital mortality (odds ratio [OR], 3.0; 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.5-3.7) and nonhome discharge (OR, 1.7; 95% CI, 1.4-2.0). In cirrhotic patients, moderate to severe liver dysfunction was the only independent predictor of in-hospital mortality (OR, 4.03; 95% CI, 2.7-5.9), but did not predict discharge disposition. CONCLUSIONS: Resection of GI malignancy in cirrhotics is associated with poor early postoperative and transitional outcomes, with severity of liver disease being the primary determinant of postoperative mortality. These data suggest that GI cancer operations can be performed safely in well-selected cirrhotic patients with mild liver dysfunction.

Minimally invasive surgery in colon cancer patients leads to improved short-term outcomes and excellent oncologic results.

BACKGROUND: Minimally invasive surgery (MIS) techniques are beneficial compared with open techniques. There is a paucity of data of the potential advantages of MIS in colon cancer surgery for veterans. Therefore, we hypothesize that use of MIS in colon cancer resections in a Veterans Affairs Medical Center will lead to improved short-term outcomes without compromising oncologic outcomes. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of a prospectively maintained database was performed. We compared surgical, short-term, and oncologic outcomes in MIS versus open surgery. RESULTS: MIS patients had significantly less blood loss, surgical time, days to return of bowel function, and hospital and intensive care unit stays. Also, they had a greater and more adequate lymphadenectomy, and were less likely to experience a postoperative complication. Survival analyses showed no difference in overall and disease-free survival. CONCLUSIONS: The use of MIS in colon cancer leads to improved short-term outcomes and similar oncologic outcomes when compared with open surgery.

A multidisciplinary cancer center maximizes surgeons' impact.

BACKGROUND: Colorectal cancer patients require care across different disciplines. Integration of multidisciplinary care is critical to accomplish excellent oncologic results. We hypothesized that the establishment of a dedicated colorectal cancer center (CRCC) around specialty-trained surgeons will lead to increased multidisciplinary management and improved outcomes in colorectal cancer patients. METHODS: We analyzed data from three periods: a baseline group, a period after the recruitment of specialty-trained surgeons, and a period after the creation of a dedicated multidisciplinary cancer center. Data analyzed included surrogate markers of surgical oncologic care, multidisciplinary integration, and oncologic outcomes. RESULTS: Recruitment of specialized surgeons led to improvements in surgical oncologic care; the establishment of the CRCC resulted in further improvements in surgical oncologic care and multidisciplinary integration. CONCLUSION: Our study suggests that although the recruitment of specialty-trained surgeons in a high volume center leads to improvement in surgical oncologic care, it is the establishment of a multidisciplinary center around the surgeons that leads to integrated care and improvements in oncologic outcomes.

Neurogenesis in colorectal cancer is a marker of aggressive tumor behavior and poor outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Colorectal cancer staging criteria do not rely on examination of neuronal tissue. The authors previously demonstrated that perineural invasion is an independent prognostic factor of outcomes in colorectal cancer. For the current study, they hypothesized that neurogenesis occurs in colorectal cancer and portends an aggressive tumor phenotype. METHODS: In total, samples from 236 patients with colorectal cancer were used to create a tissue array and database. Tissue array slides were immunostained for protein gene product 9.5 (PGP9.5) to identify nerve tissue. The correlation between markers of neurogenesis and oncologic outcomes was determined. The effect of colorectal cancer cells on stimulating neurogenesis in vitro was evaluated using a dorsal root ganglia coculture model. RESULTS: Patients whose tumors exhibited high degrees of neurogenesis had 50% reductions in 5-year overall survival and disease-free survival compared with patients whose tumors contained no detectable neurogenesis (P = .002 and P = .006, respectively). Patients with stage II disease and high degrees of neurogenesis had greater reductions in 5-year overall survival and disease-free survival compared with lymph node-negative patients with no neurogenesis (P = .002 and P = .008, respectively). Patients with stage II disease and high degrees of neurogenesis had lower 5-year overall survival and disease-free survival compared with patients who had stage III disease with no neurogenesis (P = .01 and P = .008, respectively). Colorectal cancer cells stimulated neurogenesis and exhibited evidence of neuroepithelial interactions between nerves and tumor cells in vitro. CONCLUSIONS: Neurogenesis in colorectal cancer appeared to play a critical role in colorectal cancer progression. Furthermore, the current results indicated that neurogenesis functions as an independent predictor of outcomes and may play a role in therapy stratification for patients with lymph node-negative disease.

Minimally invasive surgery improves short-term outcomes in elderly colorectal cancer patients.

BACKGROUND: Minimally invasive surgery (MIS) for colorectal resection has been shown to improve short-term outcomes compared with open surgery in patients with colorectal cancer. Currently, there is a paucity of data demonstrating similar efficacy between MIS and open colorectal resection in the elderly population. We hypothesized that minimally invasive surgery provides improved short-term outcomes in elderly patients with colorectal cancer. METHODS: A review of 242 consecutive elderly (≥ 65 y of age) patients who underwent either open or MIS colorectal resection for adenocarcinoma at one institution was conducted. Short-term and oncologic outcomes were analyzed. Continuous variables were analyzed by the Mann-Whitney U test. Categorical variables were compared by χ(2) tests. Survival was compared by the Kaplan-Meier method using the log rank test for comparison. RESULTS: Of the 242 elderly patients with colorectal cancer (median American Society of Anesthesiology score (ASA) scores of 3), 80% (n = 195) of patients underwent open and 20% (n = 47) had MIS colorectal cancer resections. Patients undergoing MIS had a faster return of bowel function, decreased days to nasogastric tube removal, decreased days to flatus and bowel movement, and quicker advancement to clear liquid and regular diets. The overall length of hospital stay in the MIS group was decreased by 40% as well as a trend towards a 50% decrease in SICU stay. Additionally, there was 66% decrease in cardiac complications in the MIS group. When evaluating for oncologic adequacy as measured by number of lymph nodes and surgical resection margins, MIS surgery offered equivalent results as open resection. Furthermore, there was no significant difference in overall survival for MIS versus open colorectal surgery. CONCLUSION: Minimally invasive colorectal cancer resection leads to improved short-term outcomes as demonstrated by decreased length of hospital stay and faster return of bowel function. Additionally, there appears to be no difference in oncologic outcomes in the elderly. On the basis of our data, age alone should not be a contra-indication to laparoscopic colorectal cancer resection.

Minimally invasive surgery is underutilized for colon cancer.

BACKGROUND: The Clinical Outcomes of Surgical Therapy Group (COST) trial published in 2004 demonstrated that minimally invasive surgery (MIS) for colorectal cancer provided equivalent oncologic results and better short-term outcomes when compared to open surgery. Before this, MIS comprised approximately 3% of colorectal cancer cases. We hypothesized that there would be a dramatic increase in the use of MIS for colon cancer after this publication. METHODS: The National Inpatient Sample database was used to retrospectively review MIS and open colon resections from 2005 through 2007. ICD-9-specific procedure codes were used to identify open and MIS colon cancer resections. Statistical analyses performed included Pearson χ(2) tests and dependent t tests, and Cramer's V was used to measure the strength of association. RESULTS: A total of 240,446 colon resections were performed between 2005 and 2007. The percentage of resections performed laparoscopically increased from 4.7% in 2005 to 6.7% in 2007 for colon cancer and remained relatively unchanged for benign disease (25.2% in 2005 vs. 27.4% in 2007, P < 0.007). Patients undergoing laparoscopic colectomy were younger, had lower comorbidity scores, had lower rates of complications (20.1 vs. 25.1%, P < 0.001), had shorter lengths of stay (7.2 vs. 9.6 days, P < 0.001), and had lower mortality (1.5 vs. 3.0%, P < 0.001). Furthermore, when evaluating adoption trends, urban teaching hospitals adopted laparoscopy more rapidly than rural nonteaching centers. CONCLUSIONS: Adoption of MIS for the treatment of colorectal cancer has been slow. Additional studies to evaluate barriers in the adoption of MIS for colon cancer resection are warranted.

Ethnic disparities are reduced in VA colon cancer patients.

BACKGROUND: Inequalities in access to care have been hypothesized to be the cause of ethnic disparities in colon cancer. The aim of this study was to determine if ethnic disparities in the outcomes of colon cancer patients exist in a system with equal access. METHODS: A review of 214 consecutive patients who underwent elective colon resection for adenocarcinoma at 1 institution was conducted. Statistical analysis was performed using independent t tests and χ² tests. The Kaplan-Meier method was used for survival estimates. RESULTS: Of the 214 patients who underwent colon cancer resection, 38% (n = 82) were African American, while 62% (n = 132) were Caucasian. There was no significant difference in the stage of disease at presentation and between the mean times from diagnosis to surgical resection for African American and Caucasian patients. Also, there were no differences in survival. CONCLUSION: There does not appear to be a disparity in outcomes for colon cancer patients where equal access to medical care exists. This is based on findings of equal stages at presentation, time to referral, and survival among groups.

Establishment of a minimally invasive surgery program leads to decreased inpatient cost of care in veterans with colon cancer.

BACKGROUND: The objective of this study was to evaluate the establishment of a minimally invasive surgery program on the cost of care at the investigators' institution. It was hypothesized that a minimally invasive surgery program would decrease overall inpatient treatment costs for veterans with colon cancer. METHODS: All patients who were admitted for colon cancer surgery in fiscal year 2009 were included in this study. The main outcome measures were inpatient treatment cost and length of stay. RESULTS: The median inpatient cost incurred in the laparoscopic colectomy group was 33% ($6,000, P < .01) less than the in open colectomy group. The median length of hospital stay and operative time were also shorter by 31% (3.5 days, P < .05) and 37% (108 minutes, P < .01), respectively, in the laparoscopic colectomy group. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, colon cancer patients who underwent minimally invasive surgery for colon cancer experienced shorter hospital stay and operative times, which resulted in lower overall inpatient treatment cost.

Routine pre-operative ultrasonography for papillary thyroid cancer: effects on cervical recurrence.

BACKGROUND: Pre-operative ultrasonography (US) is now part of published treatment guidelines for papillary thyroid carcinoma (PTC), despite the lack of long-term data on its potential value in preventing neck recurrence. We report the follow-up of patients with PTC in whom pre-operative US was used to accurately stage the extent of neck disease. METHODS: Patients with PTC who underwent pre-operative US and surgery were evaluated by indication for surgery (primary surgery, surgery for persistent PTC, and surgery for recurrent PTC). Patients who underwent their primary surgery at our institution were further evaluated by time period in which their pre-operative US was performed. Primary outcome studied was cervical recurrence. RESULTS: A total of 275 patients underwent pre-operative US; median follow-up was 41 months. Neck recurrence occurred in 6% of primary surgery patients, 5% of persistent-disease patients, and 23% of recurrent-disease patients (P < .001). By multivariate analysis, the era in which US was performed appeared to be an independent predictor of disease-free survival, with less cervical recurrences in the recent eras during which there was more US specialization. CONCLUSION: Once a patient with PTC experiences neck recurrence, they are at an increased risk for subsequent neck recurrence. Pre-operative US followed by compartment-oriented surgery may decrease recurrence rates in patients if performed before their primary operation.