Perioperative and oncological outcomes following robotic en bloc multivisceral resection for colorectal cancer.

AIM: As multidisciplinary treatment strategies for colorectal cancer have improved, aggressive surgical resection has become commonplace. Multivisceral and extended resections offer curative-intent resection with significant survival benefit. However, limited data exist regarding the feasibility and oncological efficacy of performing extended resection via a minimally invasive approach. The aim of this study was to determine the perioperative and long-term outcomes following robotic extended resection for colorectal cancer. METHOD: We describe the population of patients undergoing robotic multivisceral resection for colorectal cancer at our single institution. We evaluated perioperative details and investigated short- and long-term outcomes, using the Kaplan-Meier method to analyse overall and recurrence-free survival. RESULTS: Among the 86 patients most tumours were T3 (47%) or T4 (47%) lesions in the rectum (78%). Most resections involved the anterior compartment (72%): bladder (n = 13), seminal vesicle/vas deferens (n = 27), ureter (n = 6), prostate (n = 15) and uterus/vagina/adnexa (n = 27). Three cases required conversion to open surgery; 10 patients had grade 3 complications. The median hospital stay was 4 days. Resections were R0 (>1 mm) in 78 and R1 (0 to ≤1 mm) in 8, with none being R2. The average nodal yield was 26 and 48 (55.8%) were pN0. Three-year overall survival was 88% and median progression-free survival was 19.4 months. Local recurrence was 6.1% and distant recurrence was 26.1% at 3 years. CONCLUSION: Performance of multivisceral and extended resection on the robotic platform allows patients the benefit of minimally invasive surgery while achieving oncologically sound resection of colorectal cancer.

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.

Association of Medicaid expansion with racial disparities in cancer stage at presentation.

BACKGROUND: This study evaluates the independent association of Medicaid expansion on stage of presentation among patients of Black and White race with colorectal (CRC), breast, or non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). METHODS: A cohort study of patients with CRC, breast cancer, or NSCLC (2009-2017) in the National Cancer Database was performed. Difference-in-differences (DID) analysis was used to compare changes in tumor stage at diagnosis between Medicaid expansion (MES) and non-expansion states (non-MES) before and after expansion. Predictive margins were calculated by race, year, and insurance status to account for effect heterogeneity. Stage migration was determined by measuring the combined proportional increase in stage I and decrease in stage IV disease at diagnosis. RESULTS: Black patients gained less Medicaid coverage than White patients (6.0% vs 13.1%, p < 0.001) after expansion. Among Black and White patients, there was a shift towards increased early-stage diagnosis (DID 3.5% and 3.5%, respectively; p < 0.001) and decreased late-stage diagnosis (DID White: -3.5%; Black -2.5%; p < 0.001) in MES compared to non-MES following expansion. Overall stage migration was greater for White compared to Black patients with CRC (10.3% vs. 5.1%) and NSCLC (8.1% vs. 6.7%) after expansion. Stage migration effects in patients with breast cancer were similar by race (White 4.8% vs. Black 4.5%). CONCLUSION: An increased proportion of Black and White patients residing in Medicaid expansion states presented with earlier stage cancer following Medicaid expansion. However, because the proportion of Black patients is higher in non-expansion states, national racial disparities in cancer stage at presentation appear worse following Medicaid expansion.

High Rate of Positive Circumferential Resection Margin in Colon Cancer: A National Appraisal and Call for Action.

OBJECTIVE: To identify rates of positive circumferential resection margin (CRM) for colon cancer surgery in the US. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: CRM is one of the most important determinants of local control in colorectal cancers. The extent to which CRM involvement exists after colon cancer surgery is unknown. METHODS: Colon cancer cases with resection 2010 to 2015 were identified from the National Cancer Data Base. Adjusting for patient and tumor characteristics, comparisons were made between cases with CRM > 1 mm (negative margin) and those with margin involved with tumor or ≤ 1 mm (positive margin, CRM+). Hospital-level analysis was performed, examining observed-to-expected CRM+ rates. RESULTS: In total, 170,022 cases were identified: 150,291 CRM- and 19,731 CRM+ (11.6%). Pathologic T-category was the greatest predictor of CRM+, with higher rates in pT4(25.8%), pT4A(24.7%), and pT4B(31.5%) versus pT1(4.5%), pT2(6.3%) and pT3 (10.9%, P < 0.001). Within pT4 patients, predictors of CRM+ included signet-ring histology (38.1% vs 26.7% nonmucinous, and 26.9% mucinous adenocarcinoma, P < 0.001), removing < 12 lymph nodes (36.5% vs 26.1% >12, P < 0.001), community facilities (32.7%) versus academic/research (23.6%, P < 0.001), year (30.1% 2010 vs 22.6% 2015, P < 0.001), and hospital volume (24.5% highest quartile vs 32.7% lowest, P < 0.001). Across 1288 hospitals, observed-to-expected ratios for CRM+ ranged from 0 to 7.899; 429 facilities had higher than expected rates. CONCLUSIONS: Overall rate of CRM+ in US colon cancer cases is high. Variation exists across hospitals, with higher than expected rates in many facilities. Although biology is a major influencing factor, CRM+ rates represent an area for multidisciplinary improvement in quality of colon cancer care.

Magnetic Resonance Imaging Directed Surgical Decision Making for Lateral Pelvic Lymph Node Dissection in Rectal Cancer After Total Neoadjuvant Therapy (TNT).

OBJECTIVE: Lateral pelvic lymph node (LPLN) metastases are an important cause of preventable local failure in rectal cancer. The aim of this study was to evaluate clinical and oncological outcomes following magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-directed surgical selection for lateral pelvic lymph node dissection (LPLND) after total neoadjuvant therapy (TNT). METHODS: A retrospective consecutive cohort analysis was performed of rectal cancer patients with enlarged LPLN on pretreatment MRI. Patients were categorized as LPLND or non-LPLND. The main outcomes were lateral local recurrence rate, perioperative and oncological outcomes and factors associated with decision making for LPLND. RESULTS: A total of 158 patients with enlarged pretreatment LPLN and treated with TNT were identified. Median follow-up was 20 months (interquartile range 10-32). After multidisciplinary review, 88 patients (56.0%) underwent LPLND. Mean age was 53 (SD±12) years, and 54 (34.2%) were female. Total operative time (509 vs 429 minutes; P =0.003) was greater in the LPLND group, but median blood loss ( P =0.70) or rates of major morbidity (19.3% vs 17.0%) did not differ. LPLNs were pathologically positive in 34.1%. The 3-year lateral local recurrence rates (3.4% vs 4.6%; P =0.85) did not differ between groups. Patients with LPLNs demonstrating pretreatment heterogeneity and irregular margin (odds ratio, 3.82; 95% confidence interval: 1.65-8.82) or with short-axis ≥5 mm post-TNT (odds ratio 2.69; 95% confidence interval: 1.19-6.08) were more likely to undergo LPLND. CONCLUSIONS: For rectal cancer patients with evidence of LPLN metastasis, the appropriate selection of patients for LPLND can be facilitated by a multidisciplinary MRI-directed approach with no significant difference in perioperative or oncologic outcomes.

Predicting Risk of Recurrence After Colorectal Cancer Surgery in the United States: An Analysis of a Special Commission on Cancer National Study.

BACKGROUND: Several factors can affect the risk of recurrence after curative resection of colorectal cancer (CRC). We aimed to develop a risk model for recurrence after definitive treatment of Stage I-III CRC using data from a nationally representative database and to develop an individualized web-based risk calculator. METHODS: A random sample of patients who underwent resection for Stage I-III CRC between 2006 and 2007 at Commission on Cancer (CoC) accredited centers were included. Primary data regarding first recurrence was abstracted from medical records and merged with the National Cancer Database. Multivariable cox regression analysis was used to test for factors associated with cancer recurrence, stratified by stage. Model performance was tested by c statistic and calibration plots. Hazard Ratios were utilized to develop an individualized web-based recurrence prediction tool. RESULTS: A total of 8249 patients from 1175 CoC centers were included. Of these, 1656 (20.1%) patients had a recurrence during 5 years of follow-up. Median time to recurrence was 16 months. The final predictive models displayed excellent discrimination and calibration with concordance indexes of 0.7. The online calculator included 12 variables, including tumor site, stage, time since surgery, and surveillance intensity. Output is displayed numerically and graphically with an icon array. CONCLUSIONS: Using primarily abstracted recurrence data from a random sample of patients treated for CRC at CoC accredited centers across the United States, we successfully created an individualized CRC recurrence risk assessment tool. This web-based calculator can be used by physicians and patients in shared decision making to guide management discussions. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Registration Number: NCT02217865.

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.

Comparative effectiveness of primary tumor resection in patients with stage IV colon cancer.

BACKGROUND: Although the safety of combination chemotherapy without primary tumor resection (PTR) in patients with stage IV colon cancer has been established, questions remain regarding a potential survival benefit with PTR. The objective of this study was to compare mortality rates in patients who had colon cancer with unresectable metastases who did and did not undergo PTR. METHODS: An observational cohort study was conducted among patients with unresectable metastatic colon cancer identified from the National Cancer Data Base (2003-2005). Multivariate Cox regression analyses with and without propensity score weighting (PSW) were performed to compare survival outcomes. Instrumental variable analysis, using the annual hospital-level PTR rate as the instrument, was used to account for treatment selection bias. To account for survivor treatment bias, in situations in which patients might die soon after diagnosis from different reasons, a landmark method was used. RESULTS: In the total cohort, 8641 of 15,154 patients (57%) underwent PTR, and 73.8% of those procedures (4972 of 6735) were at landmark. PTR was associated with a significant reduction in mortality using Cox regression (hazard ratio [HR], 0.45; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.44-0.47) or PSW (HR, 0.46; 95% CI, 0. 44-0.49). However, instrumental variable analysis revealed a much smaller effect (relative mortality rate, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.87-0.96). Although a smaller benefit was observed with the landmark method using Cox regression (HR, 0.6; 95% CI, 0.55-0.64) and PSW (HR, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.54-0.64), instrumental variable analysis revealed no survival benefit (relative mortality rate, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.87-1.06). CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with unresectable metastatic colon cancer, after adjustment for confounder effects, PTR was not associated with improved survival compared with systemic chemotherapy; therefore, routine noncurative PTR is not recommended. Cancer 2017;123:1124-1133. © 2016 American Cancer Society.

Oncologic Outcomes of Extended Robotic Resection for Rectal Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Surgery for locally advanced rectal cancers beyond the plane of total mesorectal excision (TME) or extramesorectal nodal involvement should include complete resection. This study evaluated the oncologic feasibility and safety of robot-assisted surgery for rectal cancer beyond the TME plane. METHODS: The study analyzed the operative, perioperative, and oncologic outcomes for all patients who underwent robot-assisted extended rectal cancer surgery from April 2009 to February 2015. RESULTS: Of 36 patients, 22 underwent multivisceral en bloc resection, and 18 underwent extramesorectal lymph node (EMRLN) dissection. The median tumor location was 5 cm [interquartile range (IQR), 2.2-9.0 cm] from the anal verge. A total of 32 patients underwent neoadjuvant chemoradiation therapy. The median body mass index of the patients was 26.8 kg/m(2) (IQR, 24.0-31.9 kg/m(2)). Conversion was required for one patient because of inability to tolerate the Trendelenburg position. All the resections were R0, and there were no incomplete TMEs. The vagina and prostate or periprostatic structures were the most commonly resected (n = 13/22), and the lateral pelvic nodes were the most common EMRLNs (n = 16/18). The median numbers of examined mesorectal lymph nodes and EMRLNs were respectively 20 (IQR, 18.0-28.0) and 2.5 (IQR, 1.0-6.0). The median hospital stay was 4 days (IQR, 3.0-5.5 days). Six patients experienced Clavien-Dindo grade 3 complications, the most common of which was deep abscess (n = 5, 13.8 %). The 5-year actuarial local recurrence rate was 3.6 %. CONCLUSIONS: Minimally invasive resection for rectal cancer can be performed with extended lymph node dissection or en bloc multivisceral resection using the surgical robot in selected patients. This technique is feasible and has acceptable morbidity.

Postoperative chemotherapy use after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy for rectal cancer: Analysis of Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results-Medicare data, 1998-2007.

BACKGROUND: Neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy followed by tumor resection and postoperative chemotherapy is the standard of care for patients with clinical stage II or III adenocarcinoma of the rectum. Significant variation exists in the receipt of postoperative chemotherapy after resection in this population. The objective of this study was to determine the demographic and clinicopathologic factors associated with the initiation of postoperative chemotherapy in elderly patients with rectal cancer and to identify potential targets for reducing treatment variation. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was performed of patients with rectal cancer ages 66 to 80 years who received neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy and underwent radical resection in the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results-linked Medicare database (1998-2007). Multivariate logistic regression was used to assess chemotherapy use in relation to patient, tumor, and treatment response characteristics. RESULTS: Among 1492 patients who met the study criteria, 61.5% received adjuvant therapy with 5-fluorouracil. Pathologic stage was the strongest determinant of whether patients received postoperative chemotherapy (48.3% of patients with stage I disease, 59.6% of patients with stage II disease, and 77.6% of patients with stage III disease). Increasing age and postoperative readmission also were associated significantly with a decreased rate of adjuvant therapy initiation. CONCLUSIONS: Although standard treatment guidelines for locally advanced rectal cancer include postoperative chemotherapy for all patients after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy and radical resection, greater than 1 in 3 patients failed to receive adjuvant therapy. Despite the absence of established evidence, treatment decisions appear to be influenced by the findings at surgical pathology.

Modifier 22 Use in Fee-for-Service Medicare.

Importance: Modifier 22 is a mechanism designed for surgeons to identify cases that are more complex than their Current Procedural Terminology code accounts for. However, empirical studies of the use and efficacy of modifier 22 are lacking. Objective: To assess the use of modifier 22 in common surgical procedures and the association of use with compensation. Design, Setting, and Participants: This was a cross-sectional analysis of the 2021 Physician/Supplier Procedure Summary Limited Data Set including all Part B carrier and durable medical equipment fee-for-service claims. Claims for 10 common surgical procedures were evaluated, including mastectomy, total hip arthroplasty, total knee arthroplasty, coronary artery bypass grafting, laparoscopic right colectomy, laparoscopic appendectomy, laparoscopic cholecystectomy, kidney transplant, laparoscopic total abdominal hysterectomy and bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy, and lumbar laminectomy. Data were analyzed from August to November 2023. Main Outcomes and Measures: Rate of modifier 22 use, rate of claim denial, mean charges, mean payment for accepted claims, and mean payment for all claims. Results: The sample included 625 316 surgical procedures performed in calendar year 2021. The proportion of modifier 22 coding for a procedure ranged from 5725 of 251 521 (2.3%) in total knee arthroplasty to 1566 of 18 459 (8.5%) in laparoscopic total abdominal hysterectomy and bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy. Submitted charges were 11.1% (95% CI, 9.1-13.2) to 22.8% (95% CI, 21.3-24.3) higher for claims with modifier 22, depending on the procedure. Among accepted claims, those with modifier 22 had increased payments ranging from 0.8% (95% CI, 0.7-1.0) to 4.8% (95% CI, 4.5-5.1). However, claims with modifier 22 were more likely to be denied (7.4% vs 4.0%; P < .001). As a result, overall mean payments were mixed, with 4 procedures having lower payments when modifier 22 was appended, 4 procedures having higher payments with modifier 22, and 2 procedures with no difference. The largest increase in mean payment for modifier 22 claims was for kidney transplant with an increased payment of $71.46 (95% CI, 55.32-87.60), which translates to a relative increase of 3.4% (95% CI, 2.9-4.6). Conclusions and Relevance: The findings in this study suggest that modifier 22 had little to no financial benefit when appended to claims for a diverse panel of surgical procedures. In the current system, surgeons have little reason to request modifier 22, and no mechanisms currently exist for surgeons to recoup payment for difficult operations.

Assessing the utility of cancer-registry-processed cause of death in calculating cancer-specific survival.

BACKGROUND: Cancer registries use algorithms to process cause of death (COD) data from death certificates, but uncertainties remain regarding the accuracy and utility of those data in calculating cancer-specific survival (CSS). Because it is impractical to reconfirm the COD through meticulous review of the primary medical records, the observed cancer deaths could be compared with the number of attributed deaths, as estimated by using a relative survival (RS) approach, to determine utility in CSS estimation. METHODS: Six major cancer types were evaluated using Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) data (1988-1999 cohort). The COD utility was quantified by using the observed-to-expected ratio (O/E ratio) approach, which was calculated as the SEER-documented observed number of cancer-specific deaths divided by the number of expected deaths attributed to the malignancies as estimated using a RS approach. Favorable utility would have an O/E ratio close to 1. RESULTS: In total, 338,445 patients were identified; and their O/E ratios were 0.97, 0.98, 0.90, 1.07, 1.02, and 0.92 for breast, colorectal, lung, melanoma, prostate, and pancreas cancer, respectively. O/E ratios varied slightly with patients' age, race, and tumor stage, but not by sex. CSS for patients with lung cancer appeared to be overestimated considerably. Patients with multiple cancer diagnoses had poor O/E ratios compared with those who had only 1 cancer. CONCLUSIONS: The utility of COD in calculating CSS depended variously on the risk of cancer-related mortality and nontumor factors. However, the impact of this variation on CSS generally was small. The current results indicated that the COD assigned by cancer registries has acceptable validity, and CSS is considered an acceptable surrogate for RS in most circumstances.

Association between adherence to National Comprehensive Cancer Network treatment guidelines and improved survival in patients with colon cancer.

BACKGROUND: The objective of the current study was to examine the impact of adherence to guidelines on stage-specific survival outcomes in patients with stage III and high-risk stage II colon cancer. The National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) has established working, expert consensus, and evidence-based guidelines for organ-specific cancer care, including care of patients with colon cancer. METHODS: Patients who were diagnosed with colon adenocarcinoma between 1998 and 2002 were selected from within the National Cancer Data Base. The cohort was limited to patients who received their first course of treatment at the reporting facility. Pathologic variables, including tumor depth, lymph node status, and evidence of metastatic disease, were used to restage patients, and the patients were divided into low-risk and high-risk categories on the basis of criteria defined by the NCCN. Relative survival rates were calculated for the entire cohort, stratified according to adherence versus nonadherence to NCCN treatment guidelines. RESULTS: In univariate analysis of treatment adherence patterns for both patient subgroups (high-risk stage II and stage III), several factors were associated with a higher rate of nonadherence in both groups, including older age (P < .001); Medicaid, Medicare, or uninsured status versus private insurance (P < .001); and subsequent treatment at a facility other than the facility at which the cancer was first diagnosed (P < .001). In multivariate analysis, multiple factors were associated with differences in relative survival, although analyses that included the year of diagnosis did not demonstrate significant differences over time. CONCLUSIONS: The current study documented practice patterns in a heterogeneous population of patients with colon cancer and demonstrated a survival benefit for patients with stage III and high-risk stage II colon cancer who received treatment that adhered to NCCN guidelines. These data validate the current NCCN practice guidelines for colon cancer and support the concept of guideline-based metrics that can be compared across institutions to assess the quality of cancer care and to compare the quality of cancer care among institutions.

Quantified pathologic response assessed as residual tumor burden is a predictor of recurrence-free survival in patients with rectal cancer who undergo resection after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy.

BACKGROUND: The current study was conducted to determine whether quantified pathologic response assessed as a percentage of residual tumor cells is predictive of recurrence-free survival (RFS) in patients with rectal cancer. METHODS: The authors studied 251 patients with rectal adenocarcinoma who were treated with neoadjuvant chemoradiation and radical resection. Quantified pathologic response was defined as an estimated percentage of residual cancer cells in relation to the tumor bed: complete, no residual cancer cells; near-complete, ≤ 5% residual cancer cells; major, > 5%, and < 50% residual cancer cells; and minor, ≥ 50% residual cancer cells. The reproducibility of quantified pathologic response between 2 pathologists was assessed using tumors from 55 randomly selected patients who did not demonstrate a complete response. RESULTS: Pathologic response was complete in 21% of patients, near-complete in 20% of patients, major in 37% of patients, and minor in 22% of patients. Nineteen percent of patients had ypT0N0 disease, 27% had ypT1-2N0 disease, 21% had ypT3-4N0 disease, and 33% had N+ disease. The 5-year RFS rates by category of quantified pathologic response were as follows: complete, 95%; near-complete, 88%; major, 69%; and minor, 61% (P < .001). Major and minor response, high histologic grade, and perineural invasion were found to be significant predictors of decreased RFS on multivariate analysis. The 5-year RFS rates for patients with ypT3-4 or N+ disease were better for those with a near-complete response (94%) compared with those with a major (64%) or minor (61%) response (P < .02). Moderate to substantial agreement was observed between the 2 pathologists (κ = 0.72). CONCLUSIONS: Quantified pathologic response is a predictor of RFS in patients with rectal adenocarcinoma and stratifies patients with high pathologic stage disease.

Improving the AJCC/TNM staging for adenocarcinomas of the appendix: the prognostic impact of histological grade.

PURPOSE: Though histological grade is known to have a major prognostic impact in metastatic mucinous appendiceal adenocarcinomas, the prognostic impact of grade in localized disease, and the validity of the American Joint Committee on Cancer AJCC Staging Manual 7th edition's decision to combine moderately and poorly differentiated mucinous adenocarcinomas into a single mucinous high-grade category, is not known. METHODS: Patients with adenocarcinoma of the appendix diagnosed between 1988 and 2007 were identified from the SEER database. Cancer-specific survival (CSS) stratified by histological subtype, stage, and grade was calculated, and Cox proportional hazards regression analyses were performed. RESULTS: We analyzed a total of 2469 appendiceal adenocarcinomas, of which 1375 had mucinous histology and 860 had nonmucinous histology. Though overall CSS was similar for mucinous and nonmucinous subtypes, differences in stage distribution and stage-stratified CSS were seen. Female sex, stage IV disease, and well-differentiated histology were more common for mucinous adenocarcinomas. Histological grade had a strong prognostic impact, especially in patients with stage IV mucinous adenocarcinoma. The adjusted hazard ratios for stage IV moderately and poorly differentiated histological grade were 1.63 [95% confidence interval (CI): 1.14-2.34] and 4.94 (95% CI: 3.32-7.35) for mucinous histology, in comparison with 1.44 (95% CI: 0.82-2.52) and 1.90 (95% CI: 0.95-3.80) for nonmucinous histology, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The strong prognostic impact of histological grade for mucinous adenocarcinomas is primarily restricted to stage IV disease. Stage IV moderately and poorly differentiated mucinous adenocarcinomas have distinctly different CSS and these data do not support the combination of these 2 histological grades in the recent AJCC Staging Manual 7th edition.

Comparative analysis of lymph node metastases in patients with ypT0-2 rectal cancers after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy.

BACKGROUND: Neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy before total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer is associated with improved local tumor control, primary tumor regression, and pathologic downstaging. Therefore, tumor response in the bowel wall has been proposed to be used to identify patients for organ-preserving strategies. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to determine the rate of residual lymph node involvement following neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy among patients with ypT0-2 residual bowel wall tumor and to comparatively assess their oncologic outcomes following total mesorectal excision. DESIGN: This is a retrospective consecutive cohort study, 1993 to 2008. SETTING AND PATIENTS: Patients with stage cII to III rectal carcinoma treated with preoperative chemoradiotherapy and total mesorectal excision were included. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcomes measured were the rate of lymph node metastasis by ypT stage, recurrence-free survival, and the frequencies of distant metastasis and local recurrence. RESULTS: Among all 406 ypT0-2 patients, 66 (16.3%) had lymph node metastasis: 20.8% among ypT2, 17.1% among ypT1, and 9.1% among ypT0 patients. Local recurrences (2.0% vs 5.5%; p = 0.038) but not distant metastases (9.3% vs 13.5%; p = 0.38) occurred more frequently in ypN+ than in ypN0 patients. Recurrence-free survival was 85.2% among ypT0-2N0 and 79.6% for ypT0-2N+ patients (p = 0.28). The lack of difference in recurrence-free survival persisted after covariate adjustment (HR, 1.29; 95% CI, 0.77-2.16; p = 0.37). However, among ypT3-4 patients, 5-year recurrence-free survival was significantly lower with lymph node metastasis (HR, 1.51; 95% CI, 1.07-2.12; p = 0.019). LIMITATIONS: Low local recurrence event rate limited further comparison by ypT0-2 subgroups. CONCLUSIONS: Residual mesorectal lymph node metastasis risk remains high even with good neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy response within the bowel wall. Complete removal of the mesorectal burden results in excellent disease control. Given the uniquely good outcomes with standard therapy among patients with ypT0-2 disease, the use of ypT stage to stratify patients for local excision risks undertreatment of an unacceptably high proportion of patients.

An individualized conditional survival calculator for patients with rectal cancer.

BACKGROUND: Conditional survival estimates account for time survived since diagnosis to provide prognostic information for long-term cancer survivors. For rectal cancer, stage-related treatment (eg, neoadjuvant radiotherapy) affects pathologic stage and therefore stage-associated survival estimates. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study is to estimate conditional survival for patients who have rectal cancer and to develop an interactive calculator to use for individualized patient counseling. PATIENTS: Patients with rectal adenocarcinoma were identified by using the Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results registry (1988-2002, N = 22,610). DESIGN: Cox regression models were developed to determine adjusted survival estimates (years 1-10) and used to calculate 5-year adjusted conditional survival. Models were built separately for no radiotherapy, preoperative radiotherapy, postoperative radiotherapy, and patients with stage IV disease. Covariates included age, sex, race, tumor grade, and type of surgery. An Internet-based conditional survival calculator was developed. RESULTS: Radiotherapy was given to 42.6% of patients (14.1% preoperative, 28.4% postoperative). Significant improvements in 5-year conditional survival were observed for all stages, with the exception of stage I because of the initial high survival probability at diagnosis. Patients with advanced stage had the greatest improvements in conditional survival, with 5-year absolute increases of 33% (stage IIIC) and 54% (IV). Other factors associated with conditional survival included sequence of radiotherapy and surgery, age, race, and tumor grade. The Internet-based conditional survival calculator can be accessed at www.mdanderson.org/rectalcalculator. LIMITATIONS: The data source used does not include information on chemotherapy treatment, change in staging after neoadjuvant treatment, or patient comorbidities. CONCLUSION: Conditional survival estimates improve over 5 years in patients who have rectal cancer; the greatest improvements are observed among patients with advanced stage disease. The conditional survival calculator is an individualized decision support tool that informs patients, who must make non-treatment-related life decisions, and their clinicians planning follow-up and surveillance.

Reporting of Circumferential Resection Margin in Rectal Cancer Surgery.

Importance: Circumferential resection margin (CRM) in rectal cancer surgery is a major prognostic indicator associated with local recurrence and overall survival. Facility rates of CRM positivity have recently been established as a new quality measure by the Commission on Cancer (CoC); however, the completeness of CRM status reporting is not well characterized. Objective: To describe the changes in CRM reporting and factors associated with low rates of reporting. Design, Setting, and Participants: A retrospective cohort study was conducted using data from the National Cancer Database between January 2010 and December 2019. Data were analyzed between October 1, 2021, and February 1, 2022. Data from the National Cancer Database included patients diagnosed with nonmetastatic rectal adenocarcinoma receiving surgical treatment at CoC-accredited facilities throughout the US. Exposures: Patient, tumor, and facility-level factors. Facilities were divided by surgical volume, safety-net status, and CoC facility type. Main Outcomes and Measures: Circumferential resection margin missingness rates. Results: A total of 110 571 patients (59.3% men) with rectal adenocarcinoma who underwent curative-intent surgery at 1307 CoC-accredited hospitals were included for analysis. Reporting of CRM improved over the study period, with a mean (SE) missing 12.0% (0.32%) decreased from 16.3% (0.36%). Academic facilities had a higher missingness than other facility types (14.3% vs 10.5%-12.7%; P < .001). Mean (SE) rates of missingness were similar between hospitals of varying volume (lowest quartile: 12.2% [0.93%] vs highest quartile: 12.4% [0.53%]; P = .96). Cases in which fewer than 12 lymph nodes were removed had higher rates of missingness (18.1% vs 11.4%; P < .001). Increased odds of CRM missingness were noted with T category (odds ratio [OR], 1.50; 95% CI, 1.35-1.65) and N category (OR, 2.00; 95% CI, 1.82-2.20). Black race was associated with missingness (OR, 1.13; 95% CI, 1.06-1.14). Conclusion and Relevance: Although CRM positivity reporting has improved over the last decade, the findings of this study suggest there is substantial room for improvement as it becomes a quality standard. Missingness appears to be associated with poor performance on other quality metrics and facility type. This measure appears to be ideal for targeted institution-level feedback to improve quality of care nationally.

Biologic features and prognosis of ductal carcinoma in situ are not adversely impacted by initial large body mass.

Obesity is associated with adverse biologic features and poor outcome in patients with invasive breast cancer, yet this relationship has not been evaluated in patients with ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS). From 1996 to 2009, body mass index (BMI) was recorded at initial diagnosis for 1,885 patients with DCIS treated at our institution. Patients were categorized as obese (BMI ≥ 30 kg/m(2)), overweight (BMI 25 to <30 kg/m(2)), or of normal weight or underweight (BMI < 25 kg/m(2)). Logistic regression was used to examine associations between BMI and patient, clinical, and pathologic features and treatment. Local-regional recurrence was calculated using the Kaplan-Meier method. All statistical tests were two-sided. Of the 1,885 patients, 514 (27.7%) were obese, 510 (27.5%) were overweight, and 831 (44.8%) were normal/underweight. In multivariate analysis, overweight and obese patients were significantly more likely to be African American (odds ratio [OR], 3.93; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.66-5.80) or Hispanic (OR, 1.44; CI, 1.02-2.04), be postmenopausal (OR, 1.63; CI, 1.28-2.07), have diabetes (OR, 4.60; CI, 2.60-8.12), have estrogen-receptor-positive DCIS (OR, 1.39; CI, 1.00-192), and present with a radiologic abnormality rather than clinical symptoms (OR, 1.35; CI, 1.01-1.80). At a median follow-up time of 4.96 years (range, 1.0-14.34 years), no significant differences in local recurrence rates were detected based on patients' initial BMI category. Furthermore, there was no significant difference in risk of recurrence between diabetic patients receiving metformin or not. In conclusion, higher BMI is not associated with adverse biologic features or prognosis in patients with DCIS.

A population-based comparison of adenocarcinoma of the large and small intestine: insights into a rare disease.

BACKGROUND: Because of its rarity, adenocarcinoma of the small intestine is frequently compared to adenocarcinoma of the colon, although the validity of this comparison is not known. METHODS: Patients with small and large bowel adenocarcinoma (SBA and LBA) diagnosed between 1988 and 2007 were identified from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results registry. Age-standardized incidence and mortality rates were determined. Cancer-specific survival (CSS) stratified by stage and by number of assessed lymph nodes was calculated. RESULTS: A total of 4518 and 261,521 patients with SBA and LBA, respectively, were identified. In comparison to LBA, patients with SBA were younger and presented with disease of higher stage and histologic grade. The age-standardized incidence rates decreased for LBA (-1.24% per year) but increased for SBA (+1.47% per year). Although age-standardized mortality rates decreased for both LBA and SBA, the decreases were more pronounced for LBA. Five-year CSS was worse for resected SBA compared with resected LBA, although this difference diminished when comparing cases having eight or more lymph nodes assessed. The relative reduction in CSS when selecting eight or more lymph nodes was much greater for duodenal as opposed to jejunal/ileal subsite of the small bowel. With nodal selection the absolute difference in CSS between LBA and SBA for stages I, II, and III was 13, 15.9, and 18.5%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Adequate nodal assessment is much less common in SBA than LBA; and it appears that SBA, in particular duodenal adenocarcinoma, is understaged. Even after corrections to minimize the effect of stage migration and inadequate lymph node evaluation, SBA demonstrated distinctly worse CSS than LBA.