Contemporary trends and outcomes after liver transplantation and resection for intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Liver transplantation (LT) has been shown to be superior to resection in highly selected patients with perihilar cholangiocarcinoma (CCA), yet has traditionally been contraindicated for intrahepatic CCA (iCCA). Herein, we aimed to examine contemporary trends and outcomes for surgical resection and LT for iCCA. METHODS: The National Cancer Database was queried for patients presenting with stage I-III iCCA between 2010 and 2018 who underwent resection or LT. Overall survival (OS) was compared with Kaplan-Meier and multivariable Cox proportional hazards methods stratified by management. Secondary analysis of patients undergoing transplant for CCA was performed with the United Network for Organ Sharing database. RESULTS: Of 2565 patients, 2412 (94.0%) underwent resection and 153 (5.96%) LT of whom 84 (54.9%) received neoadjuvant therapy. Utilization of LT remained between 3.9% and 7.8% annually. Unadjusted 5-year OS was higher for LT than resection (59.8% vs 39.9%, P = .0067), yet adjusted analysis revealed no significant difference in mortality (hazard ratio, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.66-1.27; P = .58). On secondary analysis including 437 patients with all subtypes of CCA, unadjusted 5-year OS was higher for non-CCA indications (79% vs 52%-54%, P < .001). CONCLUSION: Utilization of LT for iCCA remains low and many cases are likely incidental. Although partial hepatectomy remains the standard of care for patients with resectable disease, our findings suggest that highly selected patients with unresectable iCCA may achieve favorable outcomes after LT. Granular, prospective data are needed to identify patients most likely to benefit from transplant and allocate scarce liver grafts.

Defining the learning curve for robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy for a single surgeon following experience with laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy.

Robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy (RPD) has a learning curve of approximately 30-250 cases to reach proficiency. The learning curve for laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPD) at Duke University was previously defined as 50 cases. This study describes the RPD learning curve for a single surgeon following experience with LPD. LPD and RPD were retrospectively analyzed. Continuous pathologic and perioperative metrics were compared and learning curve were defined with respect to operative time using CUSUM analysis. Seventeen LPD and 69 RPD were analyzed LPD had an inverted learning curve possibly accounting for proficiency attained during the surgeon's fellowship and acquisition of new skills coinciding with more complex patient selection. The learning curve for RPD had three phases: accelerated early experience (cases 1-10), skill consolidation (cases 11-40), and improvement (cases 41-69), marked by reduction in operative time. Compared to LPD, RPD had shorter operative time (379 vs 479 min, p < 0.005), less EBL (250 vs 500, p < 0.02), and similar R0 resection. RPD also had improved LOS (7 vs 10 days, p < 0.007), and lower rates of surgical site infection (10% vs 47%, p < 0.002), DGE (19% vs 47%, p < 0.03), and readmission (13% vs 41%, p < 0.02). Experience in LPD may shorten the learning curve for RPD. The gap in surgical quality and perioperative outcomes between LPD and RPD will likely widen as exposure to robotics in General Surgery, Hepatopancreaticobiliary, and Surgical Oncology training programs increase.

Surgical outcomes of patients with inferior vena cava leiomyosarcoma.

INTRODUCTION: Primary vascular leiomyosarcomas are incredibly rare and have a poor prognosis. The purpose of this study was to analyze the surgical outcomes of patients with primary inferior vena cava (IVC) leiomyosarcoma. METHODS: We performed a retrospective review of IVC leiomyosarcoma resections performed at a single tertiary care hospital from 2014 to 2023. A total of 13 cases were analyzed, including 10 women and 3 men. The presenting symptoms, tumor characteristics, operative management, postoperative complications, and survival rates were assessed for each patient. RESULTS: The median patient age was 59 years (quartile [Q]1, 52 years; Q3, 68 years). The median tumor size was 7.0 cm (Q1, 6 cm; Q3, 12 cm). The median mitotic rate was 6 per 10 high-power fields (Q1, 2.5; Q3, 15.5). All 13 patients underwent grossly negative tumor resection, with 9 (69%) having microscopically negative margins (R0). No patient had lymph node involvement. The IVCs were managed with ligation in four patients for tumors already occluding the IVC and bovine pericardial patch angioplasty in seven patients or primary repair in two patients for patent IVCs. Concomitant right nephrectomy was performed in seven patients. Left renal vein ligation was performed in three patients, but no left nephrectomies were performed. Significant postoperative complications included one patient with lower extremity compartment syndrome, two patients with severe leg swelling, and one patient with arm swelling. The 30-day mortality rate was zero. Using the Kaplan-Meier product limit method, disease-specific survival was estimated to be 93%. CONCLUSIONS: Surgical resection is a feasible and effective oncologic treatment option for patients with IVC leiomyosarcoma. The IVC can be safely managed by ligation, primary repair, or patch angioplasty, depending on the prior patency of the IVC.

Simple versus radical cholecystectomy and survival for pathologic stage T1B gallbladder cancer.

BACKGROUND: Radical cholecystectomy is recommended for T1B and greater gallbladder cancer, however, there are conflicting reports on the utility of extended resection for T1B disease. Herein, we characterize outcomes following simple and radical cholecystectomy for pathologic stage T1B gallbladder cancer. METHODS: The National Cancer Database (NCDB) was queried for patients with pathologic T1B gallbladder cancer diagnosed from 2004 to 2018. Patients were stratified by surgical management. Overall survival (OS) was compared with Kaplan-Meier and multivariable Cox proportional hazards methods. RESULTS: Altogether, 950 patients were identified with pathologic T1B gallbladder cancer: 187 (19.7 %) receiving simple and 763 (80.3 %) radical cholecystectomy. Median OS was 89.5 (95 % CI 62.5-137) and 91.4 (95 % CI 75.9-112) months for simple and radical cholecystectomy, respectively (log-rank p = 0.55). Receipt of simple cholecystectomy was not associated with greater hazard of mortality compared to radical cholecystectomy (HR 1.23, 95 % CI 0.95-1.59, p = 0.12). DISCUSSION: In this analysis, we report comparable outcomes with simple cholecystectomy among patients with pathologic T1B gallbladder cancer. These findings suggest that highly selected patients, such as those with R0 resection and imaging at low risk for residual disease and/or nodal metastasis, may not benefit from extended resection; however, radical cholecystectomy remains standard of care until prospective validation can be achieved.

Tumor size and survival in intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma treated with surgical resection or ablation.

OBJECTIVES: We performed a retrospective analysis within a national cancer registry on outcomes following resection or ablation for intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (iCCA). METHODS: The National Cancer Database was queried for patients with clinical stage I-III iCCA diagnosed during 2010-2018, who underwent resection or ablation. Overall survival (OS) was compared with Kaplan-Meier and multivariable Cox proportional hazards methods. RESULTS: Of 2140 patients, 1877 (87.7%) underwent resection and 263 (12.3%) underwent ablation, with median tumor sizes of 5.5 and 3 cm, respectively. Overall, resection was associated with greater median OS (41.2 months (95% confidence interval [95% CI]: 37.6-46.2) vs. 28 months (95% CI: 15.9-28.6) on univariable analysis (p < 0.0001). There was no significant difference on multivariable analysis (p = 0.42); however, there was a significant interaction between tumor size and management. On subgroup analysis of patients with tumors <3 cm, there was no difference in OS between resection versus ablation. However, ablation was associated with increased mortality for tumors ≥3 cm. CONCLUSION: Although resection is associated with improved OS for tumors ≥3 cm, we observed no difference in survival between management strategies for tumors < 3 cm. Ablation may be an alternative therapeutic strategy for small iCCA, particularly in patients at risk for high surgical morbidity.

Impact of Tumor Size and Management on Survival in Small Gastric Gastrointestinal Stromal Tumors.

BACKGROUND: Society guidelines remain inconsistent on the role of endoscopic and radiographic surveillance as an alternative to surgical resection of small gastric gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GISTs). Herein, we aimed to assess survival among patients with gastric GISTs undergoing observation versus surgical resection, stratified by tumor size. METHODS: The National Cancer Database (NCDB) was queried for gastric GISTs < 2 cm diagnosed from 2010-2017. Patients were stratified by management strategy-observation vs surgical resection. The primary outcome, overall survival (OS), was examined with Kaplan-Meier and multivariable Cox proportional hazard methods. Subgroup analyses were conducted on tumors < 1 cm and 1-2 cm in size. RESULTS: Altogether, 1208 patients were identified: 439 (36.3%) undergoing observation and 769 (63.7%) receiving surgical resection. In the overall cohort, patients undergoing surgical resection demonstrated improved survival (93.6 vs. 88.8% 5-year OS, p=0.02). In multivariable analysis, upfront surgical resection was not associated with a reduction in mortality; however, there was a significant interaction with tumor size. For patients with tumors < 1 cm, there was no difference in survival based on management strategy. However, resection of tumors 1-2 cm was associated with improved survival relative to surveillance. CONCLUSIONS: While surgical resection and surveillance were associated with similar survival for patients with gastric GISTs < 1 cm, this NCDB analysis suggests that patients with tumor size ≥ 1 cm may benefit from upfront surgical resection. Prospective studies comparing these two approaches and their impact on recurrence-free and disease-specific survival are needed to better align consensus guidelines and recommendations.

Comparing Survival After Resection, Ablation, and Radiation in Small Intrahepatic Cholangiocarcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Hepatectomy is the cornerstone of curative-intent treatment for intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (ICC). However, in patients unable to be resected, data comparing efficacy of alternatives including thermal ablation and radiation therapy (RT) remain limited. Herein, we compared survival between resection and other liver-directed therapies for small ICC within a national cancer registry. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with clinical stage I-III ICC < 3 cm diagnosed 2010-2018 who underwent resection, ablation, or RT were identified in the National Cancer Database. Overall survival (OS) was compared using Kaplan-Meier and multivariable Cox proportional hazards methods. RESULTS: Of 545 patients, 297 (54.5%) underwent resection, 114 (20.9%) ablation, and 134 (24.6%) RT. Median OS was similar between resection and ablation [50.5 months, 95% confidence interval (CI) 37.5-73.9; 39.5 months, 95% CI 28.7-58.4, p = 0.14], both exceeding that of RT (20.9 months, 95% CI 14.1-28.3). RT patients had high rates of stage III disease (10.4% RT vs. 1.8% ablation vs. 11.8% resection, p < 0.001), but the lowest rates of chemotherapy utilization (9.0% RT vs. 15.8% ablation vs. 38.7% resection, p < 0.001). In multivariable analysis, resection and ablation were associated with reduced mortality compared with RT [hazard ratio (HR) 0.44, 95% CI 0.33-0.58 and HR 0.53, 95% CI 0.38-0.75, p < 0.001, respectively]. CONCLUSION: Resection and ablation were associated with improved survival in patients with ICC < 3 cm compared with RT. Acknowledging confounders, anatomic constraints of ablation, limitations of available data, and need for prospective study, these results favor ablation in small ICC where resection is not feasible.

The Impact of Age in the Treatment of Non-comorbid Patients with Rectal Cancer: Survival Outcomes from the National Cancer Database.

BACKGROUND: Multimodal therapy has improved survival outcomes for rectal cancer (RC) significantly with an exemption for older patients. We sought to assess whether older non-comorbid patients receive substandard oncological treatment for localized RC referring to the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines and whether it affects survival outcomes. METHODS: This is a retrospective study using patient data from the National Cancer Data Base (NCDB) for histologically confirmed RC from 2002 to 2014. Non-comorbid patients between ≥50 and ≤85 years and defined treatment for localized RC were included and assigned to a younger (<75 years) and an older group (≥75 years). Treatment approaches and their impact on relative survival (RS) were analyzed using loess regression models and compared between both groups. Furthermore, mediation analysis was performed to measure the independent relative effect on age and other variables on RS. Data were assessed using the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) checklist. RESULTS: Of 59,769 included patients, 48,389 (81.0%) were assigned to the younger group (<75 years). Oncologic resection was performed in 79.6% of the younger patients compared to 67.2% of the older patients (p < 0.001). Chemotherapy (74.3% vs. 56.1%) and radiotherapy (72.0% vs. 58.1%) were provided less often in older patients, respectively (p < 0.001). Increasing age was associated with enhanced 30- and 90-day mortality with 0.6% and 1.1% in the younger and 2.0% and 4.1% in the elderly group (p < 0.001) and worse RS rates [multivariable adjusted HR: 1.93 (95% CI 1.87-2.00), p < 0.001]. Adherence to standard oncological therapy resulted in a significant increase in 5-year RS (multivariable adjusted HR: 0.80 (95% CI 0.74-0.86), p < 0.001). Mediation analysis revealed that RS was mainly affected by age itself (84%) rather than the choice of therapy. CONCLUSIONS: The likelihood to receive substandard oncological therapy increases in the older population and negatively affects RS. Since age itself has a major impact on RS, better patient selection should be performed to identify those that are potentially eligible for standard oncological care regardless of their age.

Closed Incision Negative Pressure Therapy to Reduce Surgical Site Infection in High-Risk Gastrointestinal Surgery: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: Despite institutional perioperative bundles and national infection prevention guidelines, surgical site infection (SSI) after a major abdominal operation remains a significant source of morbidity. Negative pressure therapy (NPT) has revolutionized care for open wounds but the role of closed incision NPT (ciNPT) remains unclear. STUDY DESIGN: We conducted a multi-institutional randomized controlled trial evaluating SSI after major elective colorectal or hepatopancreatobiliary surgery (Clinical Trial Registration: NCT01905397). Patients were randomized to receive conventional wound care vs ciNPT (Prevena Incision Management System, 3M Health Care, San Antonio, TX). The primary endpoint was postoperative incisional SSI. SSI incidence was evaluated at inpatient days 4 or 5 and again at postoperative day 30. With 144 patients studied, the estimated power was 85% for detecting a difference in SSIs between 17% and 5% (conventional vs ciNPT; 1-sided α = 0.1). Secondary endpoints included SSI type, length of stay, 30-day readmission, and mortality. T-tests were used to compare continuous variables between treatments; similarly, chi-square tests were used to compare categorical variables. A p value of <0.05 was considered significant, except in the primary comparison of incisional and organ SSIs. RESULTS: During the 2013 to 2021 time period, 164 patients were randomized, and of those, 138 were evaluable (ciNPT n = 63; conventional n = 75). Incisional SSIs occurred in 9 (14%) patients in the ciNPT group and 13 (17%) patients in the conventional group (p = 0.31). Organ or space SSIs occurred in 7 (11%) patients in the ciNPT group and 10 (13%) in the conventional therapy group (p = 0.35). CONCLUSIONS: In this multi-institutional, randomized controlled trial of patients undergoing colorectal or hepatopancreatobiliary surgery, incidence of incisional SSIs between ciNPT and conventional wound therapy was not statistically significant. Future trials should focus on patient populations undergoing specific procedures types that have the highest risk for SSI.

CT-derived body composition measurements as predictors for neoadjuvant treatment tolerance and survival in gastroesophageal adenocarcinoma.

PURPOSE: Treatment for gastroesophageal adenocarcinomas can result in significant morbidity and mortality. The purpose of this study is to supplement methods for choosing treatment strategy by assessing the relationship between CT-derived body composition, patient, and tumor features, and clinical outcomes in this population. METHODS: Patients with neoadjuvant treatment, biopsy-proven gastroesophageal adenocarcinoma, and initial staging CTs were retrospectively identified from institutional clinic encounters between 2000 and 2019. Details about patient, disease, treatment, and outcomes (including therapy tolerance and survival) were extracted from electronic medical records. A deep learning semantic segmentation algorithm was utilized to measure cross-sectional areas of skeletal muscle (SM), visceral fat (VF), and subcutaneous fat (SF) at the L3 vertebra level on staging CTs. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed to assess the relationships between predictors and outcomes. RESULTS: 142 patients were evaluated. Median survival was 52 months. Univariate and multivariate analysis showed significant associations between treatment tolerance and SM and VF area, SM to fat and VF to SF ratios, and skeletal muscle index (SMI) (p = 0.004-0.04). Increased survival was associated with increased body mass index (BMI) (p = 0.01) and increased SMI (p = 0.004). A multivariate Cox model consisting of BMI, SMI, age, gender, and stage demonstrated that patients in the high-risk group had significantly lower survival (HR = 1.77, 95% CI = 1.13-2.78, p = 0.008). CONCLUSION: CT-based measures of body composition in patients with gastroesophageal adenocarcinoma may be independent predictors of treatment complications and survival and can supplement methods for assessing functional status during treatment planning.

Multi-institutional Care in Clinical Stage II and III Esophageal Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Management of clinical stage II or III esophageal cancer requires multidisciplinary care. Multi-institutional care has been associated with worse survival in other malignant diseases. This study aimed to determine the impact of multi-institutional care on survival in patients with stage II or III esophageal cancer. METHODS: The 2004 to 2016 National Cancer Database was queried for patients with clinical stage II or III esophageal cancer who received neoadjuvant chemotherapy with or without radiation therapy followed by surgical resection. Patients were stratified into 2 groups: multi-institutional or single-institution care. Survival between groups was compared using Kaplan-Meier and multivariable Cox proportional hazards methods. Multivariable logistic regression was performed to identify factors associated with multi-institutional care. RESULTS: Overall, 11 399 patients met study criteria: 6569 (57.6%) received multi-institutional care and 4,830 (42.4%) received care at a single institution. In a multivariable analysis, factors associated with multi-institutional care were later year of diagnosis, greater distance from treating facility, residence in an urban or rural setting (vs metro), and residence in states without Medicaid expansion. Care at a single institution was associated with Black race, lack of insurance, and treatment at higher-volume or academic centers. Despite these differences, patients who received multi-institutional care had survival comparable to that in patients who received care at a single institution (HR, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.92-1.03; P = .30). CONCLUSIONS: In this National Cancer Database analysis, multi-institutional care was not associated with inferior overall survival. As complex cancer care becomes more regionalized, patients may consider receiving part of their cancer care closer to home, whereas traveling to surgical centers of excellence should be encouraged.

Implications of missing data on reported breast cancer mortality.

BACKGROUND: National cancer registries are valuable tools to analyze patterns of care and clinical outcomes; yet, missing data may impact the accuracy and generalizability of these data. We sought to evaluate the association between missing data and overall survival (OS). METHODS: Using the NCDB (National Cancer Database) and SEER (Surveillance, Epidemiology, End Results Program), we assessed data missingness among patients diagnosed with invasive breast cancer from 2010 to 2014. Key variables included demographic (age, race, ethnicity, insurance, education, income), tumor (grade, ER, PR, HER2, TNM stages), and treatment (surgery in both databases; chemotherapy and radiation in NCDB). OS was compared between those with and without missing data using Cox proportional hazards models. RESULTS: Overall, 775,996 patients in the NCDB and 263,016 in SEER were identified; missing at least 1 key variable occurred for 29% and 13%, respectively. Of those, the overwhelming majority (NCDB 80%; SEER 88%) were missing tumor variables. When compared to patients with complete data, missingness was associated with a greater risk of death: NCDB HR 1.23 (99% CI 1.21-1.25) and SEER HR 2.11 (99% CI 2.05-2.18). Patients with complete tumor data had higher unadjusted OS estimates than that of the entire sample: NCDB 82.7% vs 81.8% and SEER 83.5% vs 81.7% for 5-year OS. CONCLUSIONS: Missingness of select variables is not uncommon within large national cancer registries and is associated with a worse OS. Exclusion of patients with missing variables may introduce unintended bias into analyses and result in findings that underestimate breast cancer mortality.