Standardization of Colon Resection for Cancer: An Overview of the American College of Surgeons Commission on Cancer Standard 5.6.

The purpose of this editorial is to review the American College of Surgeons Commission on Cancer Standard 5.6, which pertains to curative intent colon resections performed for cancer. We first provide a broad overview of the Operative Standard, followed by the underlying rationale, technical components, and documentation requirements.

Surveillance Imaging after Primary Diagnosis of Ductal Carcinoma in Situ.

Background Guidelines recommend annual surveillance imaging after diagnosis of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS). Guideline adherence has not been characterized in a contemporary cohort. Purpose To identify uptake and determinants of surveillance imaging in women who underwent treatment for DCIS. Materials and Methods A stratified random sample of women who underwent breast-conserving surgery for primary DCIS between 2008 and 2014 was retrospectively selected from 1330 facilities in the United States. Imaging examinations were recorded from date of diagnosis until first distant recurrence, death, loss to follow-up, or end of study (November 2018). Imaging after treatment was categorized into 10 12-month periods starting 6 months after diagnosis. Primary outcome was per-period receipt of asymptomatic surveillance imaging (mammography, MRI, or US). Secondary outcome was diagnosis of ipsilateral invasive breast cancer. Multivariable logistic regression with repeated measures and generalized estimating equations was used to model receipt of imaging. Rates of diagnosis with ipsilateral invasive breast cancer were compared between women who did and those who did not undergo imaging in the 6-18-month period after diagnosis using inverse probability-weighted Kaplan-Meier estimators. Results A total of 12 559 women (median age, 60 years; IQR, 52-69 years) were evaluated. Uptake of surveillance imaging was 75% in the first period and decreased over time (P < .001). Across the first 5 years after treatment, 52% of women participated in consistent annual surveillance. Surveillance was lower in Black (adjusted odds ratio [OR], 0.80; 95% CI: 0.74, 0.88; P < .001) and Hispanic (OR, 0.82; 95% CI: 0.72, 0.94; P = .004) women than in White women. Women who underwent surveillance in the first period had a higher 6-year rate of diagnosis of invasive cancer (1.6%; 95% CI: 1.3, 1.9) than those who did not (1.1%; 95% CI: 0.7, 1.4; difference: 0.5%; 95% CI: 0.1, 1.0; P = .03). Conclusion Half of women did not consistently adhere to imaging surveillance guidelines across the first 5 years after treatment, with racial disparities in adherence rates. © RSNA, 2023 Supplemental material is available for this article. See also the editorial by Rahbar and Dontchos in this issue.

Peritoneal recurrence after resection for Stage I-III colorectal cancer: A population analysis.

BACKGROUND: Colorectal cancer (CRC) often recurs in the peritoneum, although the pattern of peritoneal recurrence (PR) has received less attention. We sought to describe the presentation and risk factors for PR following CRC resection. METHODS: We performed a cohort study of patients undergoing resection of Stage I-III CRC from 2006 to 2007 using merged data from a Commission on Cancer Special Study and the National Cancer Database. We estimated the timing, method of detection, and risk factors for isolated PR. RESULTS: Here, 8991 patients were included and isolate PR occurred in 77 (0.9%) patients. The median time to PR was 16.2 months (intrquartile range = 9.3-28.0 months) and most patients were identified via new symptoms (36.4%). Pathologic factors associated with increased odds of PR included higher T stage (T3 vs. T2, odds ratio [OR] = 4.8, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.5-15.7), N stage (N1 vs. N0, OR = 2.00, CI = 1.1-3.7), and signet ring (OR = 8.2, CI = 3.0-22.3) or mucinous histology (OR = 2.6, CI = 1.5-4.7). CONCLUSIONS: The majority of PR was detected within 18 months and few were identified by surveillance. Advanced T/N stage and signet ring/mucinous histology were associated with increased odds of PR.

Technical Standards for Cancer Surgery: Commission on Cancer Standards 5.3-5.8.

Clinical practice guidelines in oncology have typically focused on workup, disease staging, and medical management. Although recommendations for surgical care have been included in these guidelines, those recommendations have primarily addressed issues such as the role of surgery or the incorporation of surgery into multidisciplinary treatment strategies, not the technical performance of the operative procedures themselves. Therefore, the quality of surgery, the only component of multidisciplinary cancer care proven to be potentially curative, has been poorly controlled. During the past decade, the American College of Surgeons (ACS) cancer programs have attempted to fill this gap by developing "operative standards" for cancer surgery. This report discusses the history of the operative standards, highlights evidence to demonstrate their efficacy, and describes the activities of the ACS Commission on Cancer and Cancer Surgery Standards Program toward disseminating and implementing them.

Technical Standards for Cancer Surgery: Improving Patient Care through Synoptic Operative Reporting.

The Operative Standards for Cancer Surgery manuals define critical elements of optimal cancer surgery based on data and expert opinion. These key aspects of commonly performed cancer operations define technical standards that can be used as a quality assurance tool for practicing surgical oncologists and as an educational tool for trainees. This article provides background on these operative standards and their subsequent integration into synoptic operative report templates. With the goal of codifying the most important aspects of surgical oncology care to elevate and harmonize cancer care, the American College of Surgeons Cancer Programs has developed comprehensive synoptic operative reports. Synoptic operative reports are structured so that key data elements are recorded in a standardized format with prespecified terminology. In contrast to the narrative or structured operative reports frequently used by surgeons, these synoptic operative reports improve semantic clarity, provide uniform fields for abstraction, and facilitate passive data collection and real-time analytics while delivering key information for downstream multidisciplinary patient care. In this way, the synoptic operative report is a key component of a comprehensive effort to elevate the quality of cancer care nationally.

Oncology team perspectives on distress screening: a multisite study of a well-established use of patient-reported outcomes for clinical assessment.

PURPOSE: Cancer care team attitudes towards distress screening are key to its success and sustainability. Previous qualitative research has interviewed staff mostly around the startup phase. We evaluate oncology teams' perspectives on psychosocial distress screening, including perceived strengths and challenges, in settings where it has been operational for years. METHODS: We conducted, transcribed, and analyzed semi-structured interviews with 71 cancer care team members (e.g., MDs, RNs, MSWs) at 18 Commission on Cancer-accredited cancer programs including those serving underrepresented populations. RESULTS: Strengths of distress screening identified by participants included identifying patient needs and testing provider assumptions. Staff indicated it improved patient-provider communication and other aspects of care. Challenges to distress screening included patient barriers (e.g., respondent burden) and lack of electronic system interoperability. Participants expressed the strengths of distress screening (n = 291) more than challenges (n = 86). Suggested improvements included use of technology to collect data, report results, and make referrals; complete screenings prior to appointments; longitudinal assessment; additional staff training; and improve resources to address patient needs. CONCLUSION: Cancer care team members' perspectives on well-established distress screening programs largely replicate findings of previous studies focusing on the startup phase, but there are important differences: team members expressed more strengths than challenges, suggesting a positive attitude. While our sample described many challenges described previously, they did not indicate challenges with scoring and interpreting the distress screening questionnaire. The differences in attitudes expressed in response to mature versus startup implementations provide important insights to inform efforts to sustain and optimize distress screening.

Uptake of Breast Cancer Clinical Trials at Minority Serving Cancer Centers.

BACKGROUND: Most minorities receive cancer care at minority-serving hospitals (MSHs) that have been associated with disparate treatment between Black and White patients. OBJECTIVE: Our aim was to examine the uptake of clinical trials that have changed axillary management in breast cancer patients at MSH and non-MSH cancer centers. METHODS: The National Cancer Database was used to identify patients eligible for the American College of Surgeons Oncology Group Z0011 and Z1071 trials, and mastectomy patients fulfilling the European AMAROS trial. Uptake of trial results (omission of axillary lymph node dissection) was analyzed between patients treated at MSHs and non-MSHs and adjusted for patient, tumor, and facility factors. MSHs were defined as the top decile of hospitals according to the proportion of Black and Hispanic patients treated. RESULTS: Of 7167 patients eligible for Z0011, 4546 for Z0171, and 9433 for AMAROS from 2015 to 2016, clinical trial uptake was seen in 1195 (74.6%) MSH and 4056 (72.9%) non-MSH patients (p = 0.173) for Z0011, 588 (41.9%) MSH and 1366 (43.5%) non-MSH patients for Z1071 (p = 0.302), and 272 (11.7%) MSH and 996 (14.0%) non-MSH patients (p = 0.005) for AMAROS. On adjusted analyses, MSH status was not significant for uptake of any of the three trials. Black race, socioeconomic status, and insurance were not associated with clinical trial uptake. CONCLUSION: The uptake of three landmark clinical trials of axillary management in breast cancer was not different at MSH and non-MSH centers despite adjustment for social determinants of health. At the Commission on Cancer-accredited centers in this analysis, MSH status did not affect the uptake of evidence-based care.

Clinical Trials for the Surgical Oncologist: Opportunities and Hurdles.

Advancements in clinical practice usually require level one evidence from clinical trials that directly compare new approaches to standard of care. While clinical trials have provided data to guide advances in practices across surgical oncology, all too often accrual to clinical trials is slower than anticipated, and once results are presented and published, adoption in clinical practice is slow. Why and how can surgeons be successfully involved with clinical trials? An expert panel discusses the basic infrastructure of clinical trials, investigator-initiated trials, the National Clinical Trials Network, and opportunities for surgeon involvement. Two national clinical trials, NSABP B-51/RTOG 1304 and PROSPECT N1048, are discussed to highlight the role of the surgical oncologist.

More Frequent Surveillance Following Lung Cancer Resection Is Not Associated With Improved Survival: A Nationally Representative Cohort Study.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate whether an association exists between the intensity of surveillance following surgical resection for non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and survival. BACKGROUND: Surveillance guidelines following surgical resection of NSCLC vary widely and are based on expert opinion and limited evidence. METHODS: A Special Study of the National Cancer Database randomly selected stage I to III NSCLC patients for data reabstraction. For patients diagnosed between 2006 and 2007 and followed for 5 years through 2012, registrars documented all postsurgical imaging with indication (routine surveillance, new symptoms), recurrence, new primary cancers, and survival, with 5-year follow-up. Patients were placed into surveillance groups according to existing guidelines (3-month, 6-month, annual). Overall survival and survival after recurrence were analyzed using Cox Proportional Hazards Models. RESULTS: A total of 4463 patients were surveilled with computed tomography scans; these patients were grouped based on time from surgery to first surveillance. Groups were similar with respect to age, sex, comorbidities, surgical procedure, and histology. Higher-stage patients received more surveillance. More frequent surveillance was not associated with longer risk-adjusted overall survival [hazard ratio for 6-month: 1.16 (0.99, 1.36) and annual: 1.06 (0.86-1.31) vs 3-month; P value 0.14]. More frequent imaging was also not associated with postrecurrence survival [hazard ratio: 1.02/month since imaging (0.99-1.04); P value 0.43]. CONCLUSIONS: These nationally representative data provide evidence that more frequent postsurgical surveillance is not associated with improved survival. As the number of lung cancer survivors increases over the next decade, surveillance is an increasingly important major health care concern and expenditure.

Use of Breast Imaging After Treatment for Locoregional Breast Cancer (AFT-01).

BACKGROUND: Annual mammography is recommended after breast cancer treatment. However, studies suggest its under-utilization for Medicare patients. Utilization in the broader population is unknown, as is the role of breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). Understanding factors associated with imaging use is critical to improvement of adherence to recommendations. METHODS: A random sample of 9835 eligible patients receiving surgery for stages 2 and 3 breast cancer from 2006 to 2007 was selected from the National Cancer Database for primary data collection. Imaging and recurrence data were abstracted from patients 90 days after surgery to 5 years after diagnosis. Factors associated with lack of imaging were assessed using multivariable repeated measures logistic regression with generalized estimating equations. Patients were censored for death, bilateral mastectomy, new cancer, and recurrence. RESULTS: Of 9835 patients, 9622, 8702, 8021, and 7457 patients were eligible for imaging at surveillance years 1 through 4 respectively. Annual receipt of breast imaging declined from year 1 (69.5%) to year 4 (61.0%), and breast MRI rates decreased from 12.5 to 5.8%. Lack of imaging was associated with age 80 years or older and age younger than 50 years, black race, public or no insurance versus private insurance, greater comorbidity, larger node-positive hormone receptor-negative tumor, excision alone or mastectomy, and no chemotherapy (p < 0.005). Receipt of breast MRI was associated with age younger than 50 years, white race, higher education, private insurance, mastectomy, chemotherapy, care at a teaching/research facility, and MRI 12 months before diagnosis (p < 0.05). CONCLUSION: Under-utilization of mammography after breast cancer treatment is associated with sociodemographic and clinical factors, not institutional characteristics. Effective interventions are needed to increase surveillance mammography for at-risk populations. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02171078.

A National Study of the Use of Asymptomatic Systemic Imaging for Surveillance Following Breast Cancer Treatment (AFT-01).

BACKGROUND: Although not guideline recommended, studies suggest 50% of locoregional breast cancer patients undergo systemic imaging during follow-up, prompting its inclusion as a Choosing Wisely measure of potential overuse. Most studies rely on administrative data that cannot delineate scan intent (prompted by signs/symptoms vs. asymptomatic surveillance). This is a critical gap as intent is the only way to distinguish overuse from appropriate care. OBJECTIVE: Our aim was to assess surveillance systemic imaging post-breast cancer treatment in a national sample accounting for scan intent. METHODS: A stage-stratified random sample of 10 women with stage II-III breast cancer in 2006-2007 was selected from each of 1217 Commission on Cancer-accredited facilities, for a total of 10,838 patients. Registrars abstracted scan type (computed tomography [CT], non-breast magnetic resonance imaging, bone scan, positron emission tomography/CT) and intent (cancer-related vs. not, asymptomatic surveillance vs. not) from medical records for 5 years post-diagnosis. Data were merged with each patient's corresponding National Cancer Database record, containing sociodemographic and tumor/treatment information. RESULTS: Of 10,838 women, 30% had one or more, and 12% had two or more, systemic surveillance scans during a 4-year follow-up period. Patients were more likely to receive surveillance imaging in the first follow-up year (lower proportions during subsequent years) and if they had estrogen receptor/progesterone receptor-negative tumors. CONCLUSIONS: Locoregional breast cancer patients undergo asymptomatic systemic imaging during follow-up despite guidelines recommending against it, but at lower rates than previously reported. Providers appear to use factors that confer increased recurrence risk to tailor decisions about systemic surveillance imaging, perhaps reflecting limitations of data on which current guidelines are based. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02171078.

Association Between Intensity of Posttreatment Surveillance Testing and Detection of Recurrence in Patients With Colorectal Cancer.

Importance: Surveillance testing is performed after primary treatment for colorectal cancer (CRC), but it is unclear if the intensity of testing decreases time to detection of recurrence or affects patient survival. Objective: To determine if intensity of posttreatment surveillance is associated with time to detection of CRC recurrence, rate of recurrence, resection for recurrence, or overall survival. Design, Setting, and Participants: A retrospective cohort study of patient data abstracted from the medical record as part of a Commission on Cancer Special Study merged with records from the National Cancer Database. A random sample of patients (n=8529) diagnosed with stage I, II, or III CRC treated at a Commission on Cancer-accredited facilities (2006-2007) with follow-up through December 31, 2014. Exposures: Intensity of imaging and carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) surveillance testing derived empirically at the facility level using the observed to expected ratio for surveillance testing during a 3-year observation period. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was time to detection of CRC recurrence; secondary outcomes included rates of resection for recurrent disease and overall survival. Results: A total of 8529 patients (49% men; median age, 67 years) at 1175 facilities underwent surveillance imaging and CEA testing within 3 years after their initial CRC treatment. The cohort was distributed by stage as follows: stage I, 25.0%; stage II, 35.2%; and stage III, 39.8%. Patients treated at high-intensity facilities-4188 patients (49.1%) for imaging and 4136 (48.5%) for CEA testing-underwent a mean of 2.9 (95% CI, 2.8-2.9) imaging scans and a mean of 4.3 (95% CI, 4.2-4.4) CEA tests. Patients treated at low-intensity facilities-4341 patients (50.8%) for imaging and 4393 (51.5%) for CEA testing-underwent a mean of 1.6 (95% CI, 1.6-1.7) imaging scans and a mean of 1.6 (95% CI, 1.6-1.7) CEA tests. Imaging and CEA surveillance intensity were not associated with a significant difference in time to detection of cancer recurrence. The median time to detection of recurrence was 15.1 months (IQR, 8.2-26.3) for patients treated at facilities with high-intensity imaging surveillance and 16.0 months (IQR, 7.9-27.2) with low-intensity imaging surveillance (difference, -0.95 months; 95% CI, -2.59 to 0.68; HR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.90-1.09) and was 15.9 months (IQR, 8.5-27.5) for patients treated at facilities with high-intensity CEA testing and 15.3 months (IQR, 7.9-25.7) with low-intensity CEA testing (difference, 0.59 months; 95% CI, -1.33 to 2.51; HR, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.90-1.11). No significant difference existed in rates of resection for cancer recurrence (HR for imaging, 1.22; 95% CI, 0.99-1.51 and HR for CEA testing, 1.12; 95% CI, 0.91-1.39) or overall survival (HR for imaging, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.94-1.08 and HR for CEA testing, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.89-1.03) among patients treated at facilities with high- vs low-intensity imaging or CEA testing surveillance. Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients treated for stage I, II, or III CRC, there was no significant association between surveillance intensity and detection of recurrence. Trial Registration: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT02217865.

Utility of Clinical Breast Examinations in Detecting Local-Regional Breast Events After Breast-Conservation in Women with a Personal History of High-Risk Breast Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Although breast cancer follow-up guidelines emphasize the importance of clinical examinations, prior studies suggest a small fraction of local-regional events occurring after breast conservation are detected by examination alone. Our objective was to examine how local-regional events are detected in a contemporary, national cohort of high-risk breast cancer survivors. METHODS: A stage-stratified sample of stage II/III breast cancer patients diagnosed in 2006-2007 (n = 11,099) were identified from 1217 facilities within the National Cancer Data Base. Additional data on local-regional and distant breast events, method of event detection, imaging received, and mortality were collected. We further limited the cohort to patients with breast conservation (n = 4854). Summary statistics describe local-regional event rates and detection method. RESULTS: Local-regional events were detected in 5.5 % (n = 265) of patients. Eighty-three percent were ipsilateral or contralateral in-breast events, and 17 % occurred within ipsilateral lymph nodes. Forty-eight percent of local-regional events were detected on asymptomatic breast imaging, 29 % by patients, and 10 % on clinical examination. Overall, 0.5 % of the 4854 patients had a local-regional event detected on examination. Examinations detected a higher proportion of lymph node events (8/45) compared with in-breast events (18/220). No factors were associated with method of event detection. DISCUSSION: Clinical examinations, as an adjunct to screening mammography, have a modest effect on local-regional event detection. This contradicts current belief that examinations are a critical adjunct to mammographic screening. These findings can help to streamline follow-up care, potentially improving follow-up efficiency and quality.

Radiographic staging practices of newly diagnosed colorectal cancer vary according to medical specialty.

BACKGROUND: Since 2008, multiple guidelines have endorsed incorporation of chest CT in the radiographic staging assessment of newly diagnosed colorectal cancer (CRC). Radiographic staging practices performed after CRC is detected have not been studied. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate radiographic staging practices for newly diagnosed CRC between gastroenterologists versus non-gastroenterologists. DESIGN: Observational cohort study. SETTING: Single, tertiary-care referral center. PATIENTS: Patients newly diagnosed with a T1 or higher stage CRC at time of colonoscopy between 2008 and 2013. INTERVENTIONS: Radiographic staging. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: Radiographic preoperative staging examinations ordered by gastroenterologists in comparison to those ordered by non-gastroenterology specialists. RESULTS: This study included 277 patients with CRC newly diagnosed by colonoscopy. There were 141 total ordering physicians (68 gastroenterologists and 73 non-gastroenterologists). The majority of preoperative radiographic staging was performed by gastroenterologists (59.2% of patients, n = 164). Colorectal surgeons managed staging in 28.7% of patients (n = 47). Gastroenterologists were more likely to omit a staging chest CT than were non-gastroenterologists (64.6% vs 46.9%; P < .001). Physician practice setting, rectal location of tumor, and advanced endoscopic appearance of tumors were predictors of chest CT inclusion. LIMITATIONS: Single center, moderate sample size of both providers and patients. CONCLUSION: Gastroenterologists more frequently ordered the initial radiographic staging studies in newly diagnosed CRC patients. However, gastroenterologists were less likely to include chest CT in the initial staging of CRC despite current guideline recommendations to do so. If confirmed with further studies, educational efforts to improve compliance and standardization may be needed.

Annual case volume has no impact on patient outcomes in laparoscopic partial colectomy.

OBJECTIVES: Surgeon case volume has been utilized in the credentialing process as a surrogate for surgeon skill. The purpose of this study was to compare objective outcome measures of laparoscopic partial colectomies performed by laparoscopically skilled surgeons with varying annual case census. METHODS: We performed a retrospective cohort review of all patients (n = 255) undergoing elective laparoscopic partial colectomy. Patients were grouped according to surgeon's annual case volume as low annual case volume (LV; n = 48) and high annual case volume (HV; n = 207). HV is defined as performing >20 total cases and >25 cases per year. All demographic and clinical variables were evaluated with univariate logistic regression followed by a multivariate logistic regression model for variables approaching significance. RESULTS: Demographic variables were found to be similar between groups. Only median estimated blood loss (100 vs. 150 mL for HV; p = 0.040) was found to be significantly different between groups. However, this was clinically insignificant, as it did not lead to an increased rate of blood transfusions (0.0 vs. 3.9 % for HV surgeons; p = 0.184). All other variables were similar in both univariate and multivariate logistic regression models. CONCLUSIONS: Among surgeons with advanced laparoscopic training, the data suggest that LV surgeons are able to achieve similar outcomes as those who perform the operation routinely. Annual case volume should not be given undue emphasis when deciding whether to award privileges for laparoscopic partial colectomy.

Cancer Survivorship Care in the United States at Facilities Accredited by the Commission on Cancer.

Importance: Since 2021, American College of Surgeons Commission on Cancer (CoC) accreditation standards require providing a survivorship program for patients with adult-onset cancer treated with curative intent. Since more than 70% of all patients with cancer in the US are treated at CoC-accredited facilities, this presents an opportunity for a landscape analysis of survivorship care availability. Objective: To determine the prevalence, types, and outcomes of cancer survivorship services at CoC-accredited facilities. Design, Setting, and Participants: This survey study used an anonymous, online, cross-sectional survey conducted from May 4 to 25, 2023. Participants were CoC-accredited facilities in the US representing diverse CoC program categories, institutional characteristics, geographic regions, and practice types. Department of Veterans Affairs cancer programs were excluded due to data usage restrictions. Data were analyzed from July to October 2023. Exposure: CoC Survivorship Standard 4.8 was released in October 2019 and programs were expected to adhere to the Standard beginning January 1, 2021. Main Outcomes and Measures: Questions included self-reported survivorship program characteristics, availability of services aligned to CoC Survivorship Standard 4.8, and perceived program impacts. Response frequencies and proportions were determined in aggregate and by CoC program category. Results: There were 1400 eligible programs, and 384 programs participated (27.4% response rate). All regions and eligible program categories were represented, and most had analytic caseloads of 500 to 4999 patients in 2021. Most survivorship program personnel included nurses (334 programs [87.0%]) and social workers (278 programs [72.4%]), while physical (180 programs [46.9%]) and occupational (87 programs [22.7%]) therapists were less common. Services most endorsed as available for all survivors were screening for new cancers (330 programs [87.5%]), nutritional counseling (325 programs [85.3%]), and referrals to specialists (320 programs [84.7%]), while treatment summaries (242 programs [64.7%]), and survivorship care plans (173 programs [43.0%]), sexual health (217 programs [57.3%]), and fertility (214 programs [56.9%]) were less common. Survivorship services were usually delivered by cancer treatment teams (243 programs [63.3%]) rather than specialized survivorship clinics (120 programs [31.3%]). For resources needed, additional advanced practice clinicians with dedicated survivorship effort (205 programs [53.4%]) and electronic health record enhancements (185 programs [48.2%]) were most endorsed. Lack of referrals and low patient awareness were endorsed as the primary barriers. A total of 335 programs (87.2%) agreed that Survivorship Standard 4.8 helped advance their programs. Conclusions and Relevance: These findings of this survey study of CoC-accredited programs establish a benchmark for survivorship care delivery in the US, identify gaps in specific services and opportunities for intervention, contribute to longitudinal reevaluation for tracking progress nationally, and suggest the value of survivorship care standards.