Disparities in Access, Quality, and Clinical Outcome for Latino Californians with Colon Cancer.

OBJECTIVE: To compare access, quality, and clinical outcomes between Latino and non-Latino White Californians with colon cancer. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: Racial and ethnic disparities in cancer care remain understudied, particularly among patients who identify as Latino. Exploring potential mechanisms, including differential utilization of high-volume hospitals, is an essential first step to designing evidence-based policy solutions. METHODS: We identified all adults diagnosed with colon cancer between January 1, 2010 and December 31, 2020 from a statewide cancer registry linked to hospital administrative records. We compared survival, access (stage at diagnosis, receipt of surgical care, treatment at a high-volume hospital), and quality of care (receipt of adjuvant chemotherapy, adequacy of lymph node resection) between patients who identified as Latino and as non-Latino White. RESULTS: 75,543 patients met inclusion criteria, including 16,071 patients who identified as Latino (21.3%). Latino patients were significantly less likely to undergo definitive surgical resection (marginal difference [MD] -0.72 percentage points, 95% CI -1.19,-0.26), have an operation in a timely fashion (MD -3.24 percentage points, 95% CI -4.16,-2.32), or have an adequate lymphadenectomy (MD -2.85 percentage points, 95% CI -3.59,-2.12) even after adjustment for clinical and sociodemographic factors. Latino patients treated at high-volume hospitals were significantly less likely to die and more likely to meet access and quality metrics. CONCLUSIONS: Latino colon cancer patients experienced delays, segregation, and lower receipt of recommended care. Hospital-level colectomy volume appears to be strongly associated with access, quality, and survival--especially for patients who identify as Latino--suggesting that directing at-risk cancer patients to high-volume hospitals may improve health equity.

Stoma Complications.

Stoma-related complications are among the most common sources of perioperative morbidity in colorectal surgery. Complications can occur intraoperatively, in the immediate postoperative period, or even months to years after stoma creation. Although some will require urgent surgical intervention, most are treated nonoperatively with a combination of education, appliance adjustment, and behavioral intervention. Optimal management of stoma complications nearly always requires a multidisciplinary team approach, including surgeons, enterostomal therapists, and other allied health professionals, depending on the specific situation. Patients with a functional stoma should be expected to be able to do anything that patients without a stoma can do with minimal exceptions. The treatment of stoma complications therefore centers on improving stoma function and maximizing quality of life. Although timely and comprehensive intervention will result in the resolution of most stoma complications, there is no substitute for preoperative planning and meticulous stoma creation.

Does Rectoanal Intussusception Limit Improvements in Clinical Outcome and Quality of Life After Sacral Nerve Stimulation for Fecal Incontinence?

BACKGROUND: Sacral nerve stimulation is a treatment option for severe, medically refractory fecal incontinence, although its use in patients with anatomic abnormalities remains controversial. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to determine whether patients with rectoanal intussusception achieve similar benefits from device implantation to patients without rectoanal intussusception. DESIGN: Retrospective review of a prospectively maintained database. Demographics and clinical data were collected for each patient, including preoperative pelvic floor testing. Defecographies were reanalyzed in a blinded manner. Preoperative rectoanal intussusception was determined on the basis of the Oxford system (grade III-IV vs not; grade V excluded). SETTINGS: Academic-affiliated pelvic health center. PATIENTS: All patients undergoing sacral nerve stimulation for fecal incontinence between July 2011 and July 2019. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Cleveland Clinic Florida Incontinence/Wexner Scores, Fecal Incontinence Severity Indices, and Fecal Incontinence Quality of Life Indices at 1 year. RESULTS: One hundred sixty-nine patients underwent sacral nerve stimulation for fecal incontinence during the study period. The average age was 60.3 years and 91% were female. Forty-six patients (27.2%) had concomitant rectoanal intussusception (38 patients [22.5%] grade III and 8 patients [4.7%] grade IV). Before surgery, patients reported an average of 10.8 accidents per week and a Wexner score of 15.7, with no difference between patients with and without rectoanal intussusception ( p = 0.22 and 0.95). At 1 year after surgery, the average Wexner score was 9.5. There was no difference in postoperative Wexner scores (10.4 vs 9.2, p = 0.23) or improvement over time between patients with and without rectoanal intussusception (-6.7 vs -5.7, p = 0.40). Similarly, there was no difference in quality of life or frequency of incontinence to liquid or solid stool. LIMITATIONS: Single-institution, moderate sample size, incomplete survey response. CONCLUSIONS: Concomitant rectoanal intussusception does not appear to affect clinical outcomes or quality of life after sacral nerve stimulation for fecal incontinence. Appropriate patients with fecal incontinence and rectoanal intussusception can be considered for sacral nerve stimulation placement. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/C192 . LA INTUSUSCEPCIN RECTOANAL LIMITA LAS MEJORAS EN EL RESULTADO CLNICO Y LA CALIDAD DE VIDA DESPUS DE LA NEUROESTIMULACION SACRA PARA LA INCONTINENCIA FECAL: ANTECEDENTES:La neuroestimulación sacra es una opción de tratamiento para la incontinencia fecal grave refractaria al tratamiento médico, aunque su uso en pacientes con anomalías anatómicas sigue siendo controvertido.OBJETIVO:Determinar si los pacientes con intususcepción rectoanal logran beneficios similares de la implantación del dispositivo a los pacientes sin intususcepción rectoanal.DISEÑO:Revisión retrospectiva de una base de datos mantenida prospectivamente. Se recopilaron datos demográficos y clínicos de cada paciente, incluidas las pruebas preoperatorias del piso pélvico. Las defecografías se volvieron a analizar de forma ciega. La intususcepción rectoanal preoperatoria se determinó según el sistema de Oxford (grado III-IV vs. no; grado V excluido).ESCENARIO:Centro académico de salud pélvica.PACIENTES:Todos los pacientes sometidos a neuroestimulación sacra por incontinencia fecal entre julio de 2011 y julio de 2019.PRINCIPALES MEDIDAS DE RESULTADO:Cleveland Clinic Florida Incontinence/Wexner Scores, Índices de gravedad de la incontinencia fecal, Índices de calidad de vida de la incontinencia fecal al año.RESULTADOS:169 pacientes se sometieron a neuroestimulación sacra por incontinencia fecal durante el período de estudio. La edad promedio fue de 60.3 años y el 91% eran mujeres. Cuarenta y seis pacientes (27.2%) tenían intususcepción rectoanal concomitante (38 [22.5%] grado III y 8 [4.7%] grado IV). Antes de la cirugía, los pacientes informaron un promedio de 10.8 accidentes por semana y una puntuación de Wexner de 15.7 sin diferencia entre pacientes con y sin intususcepción rectoanal (p = 0.22 y 0.95). Un año después de la cirugía, la puntuación promedio de Wexner fue de 9.5. No hubo diferencia en las puntuaciones de Wexner posoperatorias (10.4 frente a 9.2, p = 0.23) o mejoría con el tiempo entre los pacientes con y sin intususcepción rectoanal (-6.7 frente a -5.7, p = 0.40). De manera similar, no hubo diferencia en la calidad de vida o la frecuencia de incontinencia de heces líquidas o sólidas.LIMITACIONES:Institución única, tamaño de muestra moderado, respuesta de encuesta incompleta.CONCLUSIÓN:La intususcepción rectoanal concomitante no parece afectar los resultados clínicos o la calidad de vida después de la neuroestimulación sacra para la incontinencia fecal. Los pacientes apropiados con incontinencia fecal e intususcepción rectoanal pueden ser considerados para la neuroestimulación sacra. Consulte Video Resumen en http://links.lww.com/DCR/C192(Traducción-Dr. Jorge Silva Velazco ).

Using AI and computer vision to analyze technical proficiency in robotic surgery.

BACKGROUND: Intraoperative skills assessment is time-consuming and subjective; an efficient and objective computer vision-based approach for feedback is desired. In this work, we aim to design and validate an interpretable automated method to evaluate technical proficiency using colorectal robotic surgery videos with artificial intelligence. METHODS: 92 curated clips of peritoneal closure were characterized by both board-certified surgeons and a computer vision AI algorithm to compare the measures of surgical skill. For human ratings, six surgeons graded clips according to the GEARS assessment tool; for AI assessment, deep learning computer vision algorithms for surgical tool detection and tracking were developed and implemented. RESULTS: For the GEARS category of efficiency, we observe a positive correlation between human expert ratings of technical efficiency and AI-determined total tool movement (r = - 0.72). Additionally, we show that more proficient surgeons perform closure with significantly less tool movement compared to less proficient surgeons (p < 0.001). For the GEARS category of bimanual dexterity, a positive correlation between expert ratings of bimanual dexterity and the AI model's calculated measure of bimanual movement based on simultaneous tool movement (r = 0.48) was also observed. On average, we also find that higher skill clips have significantly more simultaneous movement in both hands compared to lower skill clips (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: In this study, measurements of technical proficiency extracted from AI algorithms are shown to correlate with those given by expert surgeons. Although we target measurements of efficiency and bimanual dexterity, this work suggests that artificial intelligence through computer vision holds promise for efficiently standardizing grading of surgical technique, which may help in surgical skills training.

The Association Between Risk Aversion of Surgeons and Their Clinical Decision-Making.

BACKGROUND: The extent to which a surgeon's risk aversion influences their clinical decisions remains unknown. We assessed whether a surgeon's attitude toward risk ("risk aversion") influences their surgical decisions and whether the relationship can be explained by differences in surgeons' perception of treatment risks and benefits. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We presented a series of detailed clinical vignettes to a national sample of surgeons (n = 1,769; 13.4% adjusted response rate) and asked them to complete an instrument that measured how risk averse they are within their clinical practice (scale 6-36; higher number indicates greater risk aversion). For each vignette, participants rated their likelihood of recommending an operation and judged the likelihood of complications or full recovery. We examined whether differences in perceived likelihood of complications versus recovery could explain why risk-averse surgeons may be less likely to recommend an operation. RESULTS: Surgeons varied in their self-reported risk aversion score (median = 25, interquartile range[22,28]). Scores did not differ by level of surgeon experience or gender. Risk-averse surgeons were significantly less likely to recommend an operation for patients with exactly the same condition (65.5% for surgeons in highest quartile of risk aversion versus 62.3% for lowest quartile; P = 0.02). However, after controlling for surgeons' perception of the likelihood of complications versus recovery, there was no longer a significant association between surgeons' risk aversion and the decision to recommend an operation (64.7% versus 64.8%; P = 0.96). CONCLUSIONS: Surgeons vary widely in their self-reported risk aversion. Risk-averse surgeons were significantly less likely to recommend an operation, a finding that was explained by a higher perceived probability of post-operative complications than their colleagues.

Assessing Knowledge and Perceptions of Colorectal Cancer Screening in Armenia.

BACKGROUND: Armenia has a high incidence of and mortality from colorectal cancer (CRC). No organized screening programs for CRC exist in Armenia. This study seeks to evaluate knowledge of and attitudes toward CRC and screening programs in Armenia. METHODS: Adults aged 40-64 y were administered a survey using convenience sampling throughout polyclinics in Yerevan city. Survey questions were based on the Health Belief Model and were translated and modified for local relevance. RESULTS: A total of 368 surveys were completed. Eighty-four percent had knowledge of CRC, 91% believed that early detection leads to improved outcomes, but only 22% had knowledge of screening. Women were more likely to have knowledge of CRC (odds ratio 2.19, P < 0.05). Although 19% have personally worried about having CRC, only 7% admitted to discussing their worries with a provider and 76% were willing to undergo screening if recommended by their doctor. Seventy-eight percent of respondents would only undergo screening if free or less than ~$20 USD. CONCLUSIONS: Self-reported knowledge of CRC is high, whereas knowledge of screening remains low in Armenia. There is a willingness to undergo screening if recommended by a health care professional; however, this willingness is cost-sensitive. Interventions aimed at (1) increasing awareness of the disease and screening tests, (2) improving physician counseling, and (3) reducing financial barriers to screening should be considered along with the implementation of a national screening program in Armenia.

Rectovaginal Fistulas Secondary to Obstetrical Injury.

Rectovaginal fistula (RVF), defined as any abnormal connection between the rectum and the vagina, is a complex and debilitating condition. RVF can occur for a variety of reasons, but frequently develops following obstetric injury. Patients with suspected RVF require thorough evaluation, including history and physical examination, imaging, and objective evaluation of the anal sphincter complex. Prior to attempting repair, sepsis must be controlled and the tract allowed to mature over a period of 3 to 6 months. All repair techniques involve reestablishing a healthy, well-vascularized rectovaginal septum, either through reconstruction with local tissue or tissue transfer via a pedicled flap. The selection of a specific repair technique is determined by the level of the fistula tract and the status of the anal sphincter. Despite best efforts, recurrence is common and should be discussed with patients prior to repair. As the ultimate goal of RVF repair is to minimize symptoms and maximize quality of life, patients should help to direct their own care based on the risks and benefits of available treatment options.

Operative Incision and Drainage for Perirectal Abscesses: What Are Risk Factors for Prolonged Length of Stay, Reoperation, and Readmission?

BACKGROUND: Perirectal abscess is a common problem. Despite a seemingly simple disease to manage, clinical outcomes of perirectal abscesses can vary significantly given the wide array of patients who are susceptible to this disease. OBJECTIVE: Our aims were to evaluate the outcomes after operative incision and drainage for perirectal abscess and to examine factors associated with length of stay, reoperations, and readmissions. DESIGN: This was a retrospective analysis of the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database. SETTINGS: The study was conducted with hospitals participating in the surgical database. PATIENTS: Adult patients undergoing outpatient perirectal abscess procedures from 2011 through 2016 were included. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Study outcomes were length of stay, reoperation, and readmission. RESULTS: We identified 2358 patients undergoing incision and drainage for perirectal abscesses. Approximately 35% of patients required hospital stay. Reoperations occurred in 3.4%, with median time to reoperation of 15.5 days. The majority of reoperations (79.7%) were performed for additional incision and drainage. Readmissions rate was 3.0%, with median time to readmission of 10.5 days. Common indications for readmissions included recurrent/persistent abscess (41.4%) and fever/sepsis (8.6%). Risk factors for hospitalization in multivariable analysis were preoperative sepsis, bleeding disorder, and non-Hispanic black and Hispanic races. For reoperations, risk factors included morbid obesity, preoperative sepsis, and dependent functional status. Lastly, for readmissions, female sex, steroid/immunosuppression, and dependent functional status were significant risk factors. LIMITATIONS: The study was limited by its retrospective analysis and potential selection bias in decisions on hospital stay, reoperation, and readmission. CONCLUSIONS: Suboptimal outcomes after outpatient operative incision and drainage for perirectal abscesses are not uncommon in the United States. In the era of value-based care, additional work is needed to optimize use outcomes for high-risk patients undergoing perirectal incision and drainage. Strategies to prevent inadequate drainage at the time of the initial operative incision and drainage (ie, use of imaging modalities and thorough examination under anesthesia) are warranted to improve patient outcomes. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/B229. INCISIÓN Y DRENAJE QUIRÚRGICOS DE ABSCESOS PERIRRECTALES: CUALES SON LOS FACTORES DE RIESGO PARA UNA ESTADÍA PROLONGADA, REINTERVENCIÓN Y READMISION?: Los abscesos perirrectales son un problema frecuente. A pesar que parecen ser una afección aparentemente simple de manejar, los resultados clínicos de la incisión y drenaje quirúrgicos pueden variar significativamente dada la amplia variedad de pacientes susceptibles de sufrir esta afección.Evaluar los resultados después de la incisión y el drenaje quirúrgicos de un absceso perirrectal y analizar los factores asociados con la duración de la hospitalización, la reoperación y la readmisión.Análisis retrospectivo de la base de datos del Programa Americano de Mejora de la Calidad Quirúrgica.Hospitales que participan en la base de datos quirúrgica.Pacientes adultos sometidos a incisión y drenaje quirúrgico ambulatorio de un absceso perirrectal desde 2011 hasta 2016.Los resultados del estudio fueron la duración de la hospitalización, la reoperación y el reingreso.Fueron estudiados 2,358 pacientes sometidos a incisión y drenaje por abscesos perirrectales. Aproximadamente el 35% de los pacientes requirieron hospitalización. Las reoperaciones ocurrieron en 3.4% con una mediana de tiempo de reoperación de 15.5 días. La mayoría de las reoperaciones (79.7%) se realizaron para una incisión y drenaje adicionales. La tasa de reingreso fue del 3.0% con una mediana de tiempo de reingreso de 10.5 días. Las indicaciones comunes para los reingresos incluyeron abscesos recurrentes / persistentes (41.4%) y fiebre / sepsis (8.6%). Los factores de riesgo para la hospitalización en el análisis multivariable fueron sepsis preoperatoria, trastorno hemorrágico, raza negra no hispánica y raza hispana. Para las reoperaciones, los factores de riesgo incluyeron obesidad mórbida, sepsis preoperatoria y estado funcional dependiente. Por último, para los reingresos, el sexo femenino, uso de corticoides / inmunosupresores y un estadío funcional dependiente fueron factores de riesgo significativos.Análisis retrospectivo y posible sesgo de selección en las decisiones sobre hospitalización, reoperación y reingreso.Un resultado poco satisfactorio después de la incisión quirúrgica el drenaje de abscesos perirrectales ambulatoriamente no son infrecuentes en los Estados Unidos. En la era de la atención basada en los resultados, se necesita mucho más trabajo para optimizar los mismos en pacientes de alto riesgo sometidos a incisión y drenaje perirrectales. Las estrategias para prevenir el drenaje inadecuado en el momento de la incisión quirúrgica inicial y el drenaje (es decir, el uso de modalidades de imágenes, un examen completo bajo anestesia) son una garantía para mejorar los resultados en estos pacientes. Consulte Video Resumen en http://links.lww.com/DCR/B229.

Rescue Diverting Loop Ileostomy: An Alternative to Emergent Colectomy in the Setting of Severe Acute Refractory IBD-Colitis.

BACKGROUND: Severe acute refractory colitis has traditionally been an indication for emergent colectomy in IBD, yet under these circumstances patients are at elevated risk for complications because of their heightened inflammatory state, nutritional deficiencies, and immunocompromised state. OBJECTIVE: We hypothesized that rescue diverting loop ileostomy may be a viable alternative to emergent colectomy, providing the opportunity for colonic healing and patient optimization before more definitive surgery. DESIGN: This was a retrospective case series. SETTINGS: The study was conducted at a single academic center. PATIENTS: Patients with severe acute medically refractory IBD-related colitis were included. INTERVENTION: Rescue diverting loop ileostomy was the intervening procedure. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was avoidance of urgent/emergent colectomy. The secondary outcome was efficacy, defined by 3 clinical aims: 1) reduced steroid dependence or opportunity for bridge to medical rescue, 2) improved nutritional status, and 3) ability to undergo an elective laparoscopic definitive procedure or ileostomy reversal with colon salvage. RESULTS: Among 33 patients, 14 had Crohn's disease and 19 had ulcerative colitis. Three patients required urgent/emergent colectomy, 2 with ulcerative colitis and 1 with Crohn's disease. Across both disease cohorts, >80% of patients achieved each clinical aim for efficacy: 88% reduced their steroid dependence or were able to bridge to medical rescue, 87% improved their nutritional status, and 82% underwent an elective laparoscopic definitive procedure or ileostomy reversal. A total of 4 patients (11.7%) experienced a postoperative complication following diversion, including 3 surgical site infections and 1 episode of acute kidney injury. LIMITATIONS: The study was limited by being a single-center, retrospective series. CONCLUSIONS: Rescue diverting loop ileostomy in the setting of severe, refractory IBD-colitis is a safe and effective alternative to emergent colectomy. This procedure has acceptably low complication rates and affords patients time for medical and nutritional optimization before definitive surgical intervention. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/A520.

Patient Outcomes at Urban and Suburban Level I Versus Level II Trauma Centers.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: Regionalized systems of trauma care and level verification are promulgated by the American College of Surgeons. Whether patient outcomes differ between the 2 highest verifications, Levels I and II, is unknown. In contrast to Level II centers, Level I centers are required to care for a minimum number of severely injured patients, have immediate availability of subspecialty services and equipment, and demonstrate research, substance abuse screening, and injury prevention. We compare risk-adjusted mortality outcomes at Levels I and II centers. METHODS: This was an analysis of data from the 2012 to 2014 Los Angeles County Trauma and Emergency Medical Information System. The system includes 14 trauma centers: 5 Level I and 9 Level II centers. Patients meeting criteria for transport to a trauma center are routed to the closest center, regardless of verification level. All adult patients (≥15 years) treated at any of the trauma centers were included. Outcomes of patients treated at Level I versus Level II centers were compared with 2 validated risk-adjusted models: Trauma Score-Injury Severity Score (TRISS) and the Haider model. RESULTS: Adult subjects (33,890) were treated at a Level I center; 29,724, at a Level II center. We found lower overall mortality at Level II centers compared with Level I, using TRISS (odds ratio 0.68; 95% confidence interval 0.59 to 0.78) and Haider (odds ratio 0.84; 95% confidence interval 0.73 to 0.97). CONCLUSION: In this cohort of patients treated at urban and suburban trauma centers, treatment at a Level II trauma center was associated with overall risk-adjusted reduced mortality relative to that at a Level I center. In the subset of penetrating trauma, no differences in mortality were found. Further study is warranted to determine optimal trauma system configuration and allocation of resources.

Impact of a Risk Calculator on Risk Perception and Surgical Decision Making: A Randomized Trial.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to determine whether exposure to data from a risk calculator influences surgeons' assessments of risk and in turn, their decisions to operate. BACKGROUND: Little is known about how risk calculators inform clinical judgment and decision-making. METHODS: We asked a national sample of surgeons to assess the risks (probability of serious complications or death) and benefits (recovery) of operative and nonoperative management and to rate their likelihood of recommending an operation (5-point scale) for 4 detailed clinical vignettes wherein the best treatment strategy was uncertain. Surgeons were randomized to the clinical vignettes alone (control group; n = 384) or supplemented by data from a risk calculator (risk calculator group; n = 395). We compared surgeons' judgments and decisions between the groups. RESULTS: Surgeons exposed to the risk calculator judged levels of operative risk that more closely approximated the risk calculator value (RCV) compared with surgeons in the control group [mesenteric ischemia: 43.7% vs 64.6%, P < 0.001 (RCV = 25%); gastrointestinal bleed: 47.7% vs 53.4%, P < 0.001 (RCV = 38%); small bowel obstruction: 13.6% vs 17.5%, P < 0.001 (RCV = 14%); appendicitis: 13.4% vs 24.4%, P < 0.001 (RCV = 5%)]. Surgeons exposed to the risk calculator also varied less in their assessment of operative risk (standard deviations: mesenteric ischemia 20.2% vs 23.2%, P = 0.01; gastrointestinal bleed 17.4% vs 24.1%, P < 0.001; small bowel obstruction 10.6% vs 14.9%, P < 0.001; appendicitis 15.2% vs 21.8%, P < 0.001). However, averaged across the 4 vignettes, the 2 groups did not differ in their reported likelihood of recommending an operation (mean 3.7 vs 3.7, P = 0.76). CONCLUSIONS: Exposure to risk calculator data leads to less varied and more accurate judgments of operative risk among surgeons, and thus may help inform discussions of treatment options between surgeons and patients. Interestingly, it did not alter their reported likelihood of recommending an operation.

Surgeon Perception of Risk and Benefit in the Decision to Operate.

OBJECTIVE: To determine how surgeons' perceptions of treatment risks and benefits influence their decisions to operate. BACKGROUND: Little is known about what makes one surgeon choose to operate on a patient and another chooses not to operate. METHODS: Using an online study, we presented a national sample of surgeons (N = 767) with four detailed clinical vignettes (mesenteric ischemia, gastrointestinal bleed, bowel obstruction, appendicitis) where the best treatment option was uncertain and asked them to: (1) judge the risks (probability of serious complications) and benefits (probability of recovery) for operative and nonoperative management and (2) decide whether or not they would recommend an operation. RESULTS: Across all clinical vignettes, surgeons varied markedly in both their assessments of the risks and benefits of operative and nonoperative management (narrowest range 4%-100% for all four predictions across vignettes) and in their decisions to operate (49%-85%). Surgeons were less likely to operate as their perceptions of operative risk increased [absolute difference (AD) = -29.6% from 1.0 standard deviation below to 1.0 standard deviation above mean (95% confidence interval, CI: -31.6, -23.8)] and their perceptions of nonoperative benefit increased [AD = -32.6% (95% CI: -32.8,--28.9)]. Surgeons were more likely to operate as their perceptions of operative benefit increased [AD = 18.7% (95% CI: 12.6, 21.5)] and their perceptions of nonoperative risk increased [AD = 32.7% (95% CI: 28.7, 34.0)]. Differences in risk/benefit perceptions explained 39% of the observed variation in decisions to operate across the four vignettes. CONCLUSIONS: Given the same clinical scenarios, surgeons' perceptions of treatment risks and benefits vary and are highly predictive of their decisions to operate.

Variation in Hospital Use of Postacute Care After Surgery and the Association With Care Quality.

BACKGROUND: Little is known about hospital use of postacute care after surgery and whether it is related to measures of surgical quality. RESEARCH DESIGN: We used data merged between a national surgery registry, Medicare inpatient claims, the Area Resource File, and the American Hospital Association Annual Survey (2005-2008). Using bivariate and multivariate analyses, we calculated hospital-level, risk-adjusted rates of postacute care use for both inpatient facilities (IF) and home health care (HHC), and examined the association of these rates with hospital quality measures, including mortality, complications, readmissions, and length of stay. RESULTS: Of 112,620 patients treated at 217 hospitals, 18.6% were discharged to an IF, and 19.9% were discharged with HHC. Even after adjusting for differences in patient and hospital characteristics, hospitals varied widely in their use of both IF (mean, 20.3%; range, 2.7%-39.7%) and HHC (mean, 22.3%; range, 3.1%-57.8%). A hospital's risk-adjusted postoperative mortality rate or complication rate was not significantly associated with its use of postacute care, but higher 30-day readmission rates were associated with higher use of IF (24.1% vs. 21.2%, P=0.03). Hospitals with longer average length of stay used IF less frequently (19.4% vs. 24.4%, P<0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Hospitals vary widely in their use of postacute care. Although hospital use of postacute care was not associated with risk-adjusted complication or mortality rates, hospitals with high readmission rates and shorter lengths of stay used inpatient postacute care more frequently. To reduce variations in care, better criteria are needed to identify which patients benefit most from these services.

Mental Health Conditions Among Patients Seeking and Undergoing Bariatric Surgery: A Meta-analysis.

IMPORTANCE: Bariatric surgery is associated with sustained weight loss and improved physical health status for severely obese individuals. Mental health conditions may be common among patients seeking bariatric surgery; however, the prevalence of these conditions and whether they are associated with postoperative outcomes remains unknown. OBJECTIVE: To determine the prevalence of mental health conditions among bariatric surgery candidates and recipients, to evaluate the association between preoperative mental health conditions and health outcomes following bariatric surgery, and to evaluate the association between surgery and the clinical course of mental health conditions. DATA SOURCES: We searched PubMed, MEDLINE on OVID, and PsycINFO for studies published between January 1988 and November 2015. Study quality was assessed using an adapted tool for risk of bias; quality of evidence was rated based on GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) criteria. FINDINGS: We identified 68 publications meeting inclusion criteria: 59 reporting the prevalence of preoperative mental health conditions (65,363 patients) and 27 reporting associations between preoperative mental health conditions and postoperative outcomes (50,182 patients). Among patients seeking and undergoing bariatric surgery, the most common mental health conditions, based on random-effects estimates of prevalence, were depression (19% [95% CI, 14%-25%]) and binge eating disorder (17% [95% CI, 13%-21%]). There was conflicting evidence regarding the association between preoperative mental health conditions and postoperative weight loss. Neither depression nor binge eating disorder was consistently associated with differences in weight outcomes. Bariatric surgery was, however, consistently associated with postoperative decreases in the prevalence of depression (7 studies; 8%-74% decrease) and the severity of depressive symptoms (6 studies; 40%-70% decrease). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Mental health conditions are common among bariatric surgery patients-in particular, depression and binge eating disorder. There is inconsistent evidence regarding the association between preoperative mental health conditions and postoperative weight loss. Moderate-quality evidence supports an association between bariatric surgery and lower rates of depression postoperatively.

Are primary care providers prepared to care for survivors of breast cancer in the safety net?

BACKGROUND: With the growing number of survivors of breast cancer outpacing the capacity of oncology providers, there is pressure to transition patients back to primary care. Primary care providers (PCPs) working in safety-net settings may have less experience treating survivors, and little is known about their knowledge and views on survivorship care. The current study was performed to determine the knowledge, attitudes, and confidence of PCPs in the safety net at delivering care to survivors of breast cancer. METHODS: A modified version of the National Cancer Institute's Survey of Physician Attitudes Regarding Care of Cancer Survivors was given to providers at 2 county hospitals and 5 associated clinics (59 providers). Focus groups were held to understand barriers to survivorship care. RESULTS: Although the majority of providers believed PCPs have the skills necessary to provide cancer-related follow-up, the vast majority were not comfortable providing these services themselves. Providers were adherent to American Society of Clinical Oncology recommendations for mammography (98%) and physical examination (87%); less than one-third were guideline-concordant for laboratory testing and only 6 providers (10%) met all recommendations. PCPs universally requested additional training on clinical guidelines and the provision of written survivorship care plans before transfer. Concerns voiced in qualitative sessions included unfamiliarity with the management of endocrine therapy and confusion regarding who would be responsible for certain aspects of care. CONCLUSIONS: Safety-net providers currently lack knowledge of and confidence in providing survivorship care to patients with breast cancer. Opportunities exist for additional training in evidence-based guidelines and improved coordination of care between PCPs and oncology specialists.

Nonoperative Management for Rectal Cancer.

ABSTRACT: The treatment paradigm for rectal cancer has been shifting toward de-escalated approaches to preserve patient quality of life. Historically, the standard treatment in the United States for locally advanced rectal cancer has standardly comprised preoperative chemoradiotherapy coupled with total mesorectal excision. Recent data challenge this "one-size-fits-all" strategy, supporting the possibility of omitting surgery for certain patients who achieve a clinical complete response to neoadjuvant therapy. Consequently, patients and their physicians must navigate diverse neoadjuvant options, often in the context of pursuing organ preservation. Total neoadjuvant therapy, involving the administration of all chemotherapy and radiation before total mesorectal excision, is associated with the highest rates of clinical complete response. However, questions persist regarding the optimal sequencing of radiation and chemotherapy and the choice between short-course and long-course radiation. Additionally, meticulous response assessment and surveillance are critical for selecting patients for nonoperative management without compromising the excellent cure rates associated with trimodality therapy. As nonoperative management becomes increasingly recognized as a standard-of-care treatment option for patients with rectal cancer, ongoing research in patient selection and monitoring as well as patient-reported outcomes is critical to guide personalized rectal cancer management within a patient-centered framework.

Racial and ethnic disparities in access to total neoadjuvant therapy for rectal cancer.

BACKGROUND: Total neoadjuvant therapy has revolutionized the treatment of locally advanced rectal cancer and quickly become the new standard of care. Whether patients from all racial and ethnic groups have had equal access to these potential benefits, however, remains unknown. METHODS: We identified all adults diagnosed with locally advanced rectal cancer in California who underwent neoadjuvant chemotherapy and radiation from 2010 to 2020 using the California Cancer Registry. We used logistic regression to estimate the predicted probability of receiving total neoadjuvant therapy as opposed to traditional chemoradiotherapy for each racial and ethnic group and used a time-race interaction to evaluate trends in access to total neoadjuvant therapy over time. We also compared survival by racial and ethnic group and total neoadjuvant therapy status using Kaplan-Meier plots and Cox proportional hazards models. RESULTS: In total, 6,856 patients met inclusion criteria. Overall, 36.6% of patients received total neoadjuvant therapy in 2010 compared with 66.3% in 2020. Latino patients were significantly less likely than non-Latino White patients to undergo total neoadjuvant therapy ; however, there was no difference in the rate of growth in total neoadjuvant therapy over time between racial and ethnic groups. Non-Latino Black patients appeared to have lower risk-adjusted survival compared with non-Latino White patients, although not among patients who underwent total neoadjuvant therapy . CONCLUSION: Access to total neoadjuvant therapy has increased significantly over time in California with no apparent difference in the rate of growth between racial and ethnic groups. We found no evidence of racial or ethnic disparities in survival among patients treated with total neoadjuvant therapy, suggesting that increasing access to high-quality cancer care may also improve health equity.

Out-of-Pocket Costs Among Patients With a New Cancer Diagnosis Enrolled in High-Deductible Health Plans vs Traditional Insurance.

Importance: The financial burden of a cancer diagnosis is increasing rapidly with advances in cancer care. Simultaneously, more individuals are enrolling in high-deductible health plans (HDHPs) vs traditional insurance than ever before. Objective: To characterize the out-of-pocket costs (OOPCs) of cancer care for individuals in HDHPs vs traditional insurance plans. Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective cohort study used the administrative claims data of a single national insurer in the US for 134 826 patients aged 18 to 63 years with a new diagnosis of breast, colorectal, lung, or other cancer from 2008 to 2018 with 24 months or more of continuous enrollment. Propensity score matching was performed to create comparator groups based on the presence or absence of an incident cancer diagnosis. Exposures: A new cancer diagnosis and enrollment in an HDHP vs a traditional health insurance plan. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was OOPCs among individuals with breast, colon, lung, or all other types of cancer combined compared with those with no cancer diagnosis. A triple difference-in-differences analysis was performed to identify incremental OOPCs based on cancer diagnosis and enrollment in HDHPs vs traditional plans. Results: After propensity score matching, 134 826 patients remained in each of the cancer (73 572 women [55%]; median age, 53 years [IQR, 46-58 years]; 110 071 non-Hispanic White individuals [82%]) and noncancer (66 619 women [49%]; median age, 53 years [IQR, 46-59 years]; 105 023 non-Hispanic White individuals [78%]) cohorts. Compared with baseline costs of medical care among individuals without cancer, a breast cancer diagnosis was associated with the highest incremental OOPC ($714.68; 95% CI, $664.91-$764.45), followed by lung ($475.51; 95% CI, $340.16-$610.86), colorectal ($361.41; 95% CI, $294.34-$428.48), and all other types of cancer combined ($90.51; 95% CI, $74.22-$106.79). Based on the triple difference-in-differences analysis, compared with patients without cancer enrolled in HDHPs, those with breast cancer paid $1683.36 in additional yearly OOPCs (95% CI, $1576.66-$1790.07), those with colorectal cancer paid $1420.06 more (95% CI, $1232.31-$1607.80), those with lung cancer paid $467.25 more (95% CI, $130.13-$804.37), and those with other types of cancer paid $550.87 more (95% CI, $514.75-$586.99). Conclusions and Relevance: Patients with cancer and private insurance experienced sharp increases in OOPCs compared with those without cancer, which was amplified among those with HDHPs. These findings illustrate the degree to which HDHPs offer poorer protection than traditional insurance against unexpected health care expenses. Coupled with the increasing cost of cancer care, higher cost sharing in the form of increasing enrollment in HDHPs requires further research on the potential clinical consequences through delayed or foregone care.