Association of patient socioeconomic status with outcomes after palliative treatment for disseminated cancer.

BACKGROUND: Palliative treatment has been associated with improved quality of life and survival for a wide variety of metastatic cancers. However, it is unclear whether the benefits of palliative treatment are uniformly experienced across the US cancer population. We evaluated patterns and outcomes of palliative treatment based on socioeconomic, sociodemographic and treating facility characteristics. METHODS: Patients diagnosed between 2008 and 2019 with Stage IV primary cancer of nine organ sites were analyzed in the National Cancer Database. The association between identified variables, and outcomes concerning the administration of palliative treatment were analyzed with multivariable logistic regression and Cox proportional hazard models. RESULTS: Overall 238,995 (23.6%) of Stage IV patients received palliative treatment, which increased over time for all cancers (from 20.7% in 2008 to 25.6% in 2019). Palliative treatment utilization differed significantly by region (West less than Northeast, OR: 0.55 [0.54-0.56], p < 0.001) and insurance payer status (uninsured greater than private insurance, OR: 1.35 [1.32-1.39], p < 0.001). Black race and Hispanic ethnicity were also associated with lower rates of palliative treatment compared to White and non-Hispanics respectively (OR for Blacks: 0.91 [0.90-0.93], p < 0.001 and OR for Hispanics: 0.79 [0.77-0.81] p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: There are important differences in the utilization of palliative treatment across different populations in the United States. A better understanding of variability in palliative treatment use and outcomes may identify opportunities to improve informed decision making and optimize quality of care at the end-of-life.

The National Cancer Database Conforms to the Standardized Framework for Registry and Data Quality.

BACKGROUND: Standardization of procedures for data abstraction by cancer registries is fundamental for cancer surveillance, clinical and policy decision-making, hospital benchmarking, and research efforts. The objective of the current study was to evaluate adherence to the four components (completeness, comparability, timeliness, and validity) defined by Bray and Parkin that determine registries' ability to carry out these activities to the hospital-based National Cancer Database (NCDB). METHODS: Tbis study used data from U.S. Cancer Statistics, the official federal cancer statistics and joint effort between the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the National Cancer Institute (NCI), which includes data from National Program of Cancer Registries (NPCR) and Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) to evaluate NCDB completeness between 2016 and 2020. The study evaluated comparability of case identification and coding procedures. It used Commission on Cancer (CoC) standards from 2022 to assess timeliness and validity. RESULTS: Completeness was demonstrated with a total of 6,828,507 cases identified within the NCDB, representing 73.7% of all cancer cases nationwide. Comparability was followed using standardized and international guidelines on coding and classification procedures. For timeliness, hospital compliance with timely data submission was 92.7%. Validity criteria for re-abstracting, recording, and reliability procedures across hospitals demonstrated 94.2% compliance. Additionally, data validity was shown by a 99.1% compliance with histologic verification standards, a 93.6% assessment of pathologic synoptic reporting, and a 99.1% internal consistency of staff credentials. CONCLUSION: The NCDB is characterized by a high level of case completeness and comparability with uniform standards for data collection, and by hospitals with high compliance, timely data submission, and high rates of compliance with validity standards for registry and data quality evaluation.

Identifying Opportunities to Deliver High-Quality Cancer Care Across a Health System: A Clinical Responsibility.

OBJECTIVE: We examined process-related quality metrics for oral squamous cell carcinoma (OSCC) depending on treating facility type across a health system and region. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective in accordance with Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology guidelines. SETTING: Single health system and region. METHODS: Patients with OSCC diagnosed between 2012 and 2018 were identified from tumor registries of 6 hospitals (1 academic and 5 community) within a single health system. Patients were categorized into 3 care groups: (1) solely at the academic center, (2) solely at community facilities, and (3) combined care at academic and community facilities. Primary outcome measures were process-related quality metrics: positive surgical margin rate, lymph node yield (LNY), adjuvant treatment initiation ≤6 weeks, National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN)-guideline adherence. RESULTS: A total of 499 patients were included: 307 (61.5%) patients in the academic-only group, 101 (20.2%) in the community-only group, and 91 (18.2%) in the combined group. Surgery at community hospitals was associated with increased odds of positive surgical margins (11.9% vs 2.5%, odds ratio [OR]: 47.73, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 11.2-275.86, P < .001) and lower odds of LNY ≥ 18 (52.8% vs 85.9%, OR: 0.15, 95% CI: 0.07-0.33, P < .001) relative to the academic center. Compared with the academic-only group, odds of adjuvant treatment initiation ≤6 weeks were lower for the combined group (OR: 0.30, 95% CI: 0.13-0.64, P = .002) and odds of NCCN guideline-adherent treatment were lower in the community only group (OR: 0.35, 95% CI: 0.18-0.70, P = .003). CONCLUSION: Quality of oral cancer care across the health system and region is comparable to or better-than national standards, indicating good baseline quality of care. Differences by facility type and fragmentation of care present an opportunity for bringing best in-class cancer care across an entire region.

Survival Among Patients With High-Risk Gastrointestinal Cancers During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

Importance: Prior reports demonstrated that patients with cancer experienced worse outcomes from pandemic-related stressors and COVID-19 infection. Patients with certain malignant neoplasms, such as high-risk gastrointestinal (HRGI) cancers, may have been particularly affected. Objective: To evaluate disruptions in care and outcomes among patients with HRGI cancers during the COVID-19 pandemic, assessing for signs of long-term changes in populations and survival. Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective cohort study used data from the National Cancer Database to identify patients with HRGI cancer (esophageal, gastric, primary liver, or pancreatic) diagnosed between January 1, 2018, and December 31, 2020. Data were analyzed between August 23 and September 4, 2023. Main Outcome and Measures: Trends in monthly new cases and proportions by stage in 2020 were compared with the prior 2 years. Kaplan-Meier curves and Cox regression were used to assess 1-year mortality in 2020 compared with 2018 to 2019. Proportional monthly trends and multivariable logistic regression were used to evaluate 30-day and 90-day mortality in 2020 compared with prior years. Results: Of the 156 937 patients included in this study, 54 994 (35.0%) were aged 60 to 69 years and 100 050 (63.8%) were men. There was a substantial decrease in newly diagnosed HRGI cancers in March to May 2020, which returned to prepandemic levels by July 2020. For stage, there was a proportional decrease in the diagnosis of stage I (-3.9%) and stage II (-2.3%) disease, with an increase in stage IV disease (7.1%) during the early months of the pandemic. Despite a slight decrease in 1-year survival rates in 2020 (50.7% in 2018 and 2019 vs 47.4% in 2020), survival curves remained unchanged between years (all P > .05). After adjusting for confounders, diagnosis in 2020 was not associated with increased 1-year mortality compared with 2018 to 2019 (hazard ratio, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.97-1.01). The rates of 30-day (2.1% in 2018, 2.0% in 2019, and 2.1% in 2020) and 90-day (4.3% in 2018, 4.4% in 2019, and 4.6% in 2020) operative mortality also remained similar. Conclusions and Relevance: In this retrospective cohort study, a period of underdiagnosis and increase in stage IV disease was observed for HRGI cancers during the pandemic; however, there was no change in 1-year survival or operative mortality. These results demonstrate the risks associated with gaps in care and the tremendous efforts of the cancer community to ensure quality care delivery during the pandemic. Future research should investigate long-term survival changes among all cancer types as additional follow-up data are accrued.

Medicaid Expansion Under the Affordable Care Act and Early Mortality Following Lung Cancer Surgery.

Importance: Medicaid expansion under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is associated with gains in health insurance coverage, earlier stage diagnosis, and improved survival among patients with cancer. Objective: To examine the association of Medicaid expansion with changes in early mortality among adults undergoing surgical resection of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), a setting in which access to care is a major determinant of survival. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study used the National Cancer Database to identify 14 984 adults 45 to 64 years of age who underwent surgical resection of NSCLC between 2008 and 2019. Analysis was conducted between March 28, 2021, and September 1, 2023. Exposure: State of residence Medicaid expansion status. Main Outcomes and Measures: Descriptive statistics were used to compare study population characteristics by Medicaid expansion status of patients' state of residence. Difference-in-differences analyses were used to evaluate the association between Medicaid expansion and postoperative mortality before implementation of the ACA (2008-2013) vs after (2014-2019). Results: Among 14 984 adults included, the mean (SD) age was 56.3 (5.1) years, 54.6% were women, and 62.1% lived in Medicaid expansion states. Both 30-day (from 0.97% to 0.26%) and 90-day (from 2.63% to 1.32%) postoperative mortality decreased from before the ACA to after among patients residing in Medicaid expansion states (both P < .001) but not in nonexpansion states (30-day mortality before the ACA, 0.75% vs after the ACA, 0.68%; P = .74; and 90-day mortality before the ACA, 2.43% vs after the ACA, 2.20%; P = .57), leading to a difference-in-differences of -0.64 percentage points (95% CI, -1.19 to -0.08; P = .03) for 30-day mortality and -1.08 percentage points (95% CI, -2.08 to -0.08; P = .03) for 90-day mortality. The difference-in-differences for in-hospital mortality was not significant (P = .34) between expansion states (1.41% before the ACA to 0.77% after the ACA; 0.63 percentage point decrease; P = .004) and nonexpansion states (1.49% before the ACA to 1.20% after the ACA; 0.30 percentage point decrease; P = .29). Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study of patients with NSCLC, Medicaid expansion was associated with declines in 30- and 90-day postoperative mortality following hospital discharge. These findings suggest that Medicaid expansion may be an effective strategy for improving access to care and cancer outcomes in this population.

Overall survival in low-comorbidity patients with stage I non-small cell lung cancer who chose stereotactic body radiotherapy compared to surgery.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate trends in the utilization of stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) and to compare overall survival (OS) of patients with early-stage non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) undergoing SBRT versus those undergoing surgery. METHODS: The National Cancer Database was queried for patients without documented comorbidities who underwent surgical resection (lobectomy, segmentectomy, or wedge resection) or SBRT for clinical stage I NSCLC between 2012 and 2018. Peritreatment mortality and 5-year OS were compared among propensity score-matched cohorts. RESULTS: A total of 30,658 patients were identified, including 24,729 (80.7%) who underwent surgery and 5929 (19.3%) treated with SBRT. Between 2012 and 2018, the proportion of patients receiving SBRT increased from 15.9% to 26.0% (P < .001). The 30-day mortality and 90-day mortality were higher among patients undergoing surgical resection versus those receiving SBRT (1.7% vs 0.3%, P < .001; 2.8% vs 1.7%, P < .001). In propensity score-matched patients, OS favored SBRT for the first several months, but this was reversed before 1 year and significantly favored surgical management in the long term (5-year OS, 71.0% vs 41.8%; P < .001). The propensity score-matched analysis was repeated to include only SBRT patients who had documented refusal of a recommended surgery, which again demonstrated superior 5-year OS with surgical management (71.4% vs 55.9%; P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: SBRT is being increasingly used to treat early-stage lung cancer in low-comorbidity patients. However, for patients who may be candidates for either treatment, the long-term OS favors surgical management.

Respect the Middle Lobe: Perioperative Risk of Bilobectomy Compared With Lobectomy and Pneumonectomy.

BACKGROUND: In some cases of right-sided lung cancer, tumor extension, bronchial involvement, or pulmonary artery infiltration may necessitate bilobectomy. Although the middle lobe is believed to represent a fraction of total lung function, the morbidity and mortality associated with bilobectomy is not well described. METHODS: We retrospectively identified patients in The Society of Thoracic Surgeons Database who underwent lobectomy, bilobectomy, or pneumonectomy for lung cancer from 2009 to 2017. The primary outcome was 30-day perioperative mortality. We performed propensity matching by patient demographics, comorbidities, and perioperative variables for each surgical type against bilobectomy and ran Cox proportional hazard models. Secondary outcomes of 30-day morbidity and mortality of upper vs lower bilobectomy were also compared. RESULTS: Within the study period 2911 bilobectomy, 65,506 lobectomy, and 3370 pneumonectomy patients met the inclusion criteria. Patients undergoing pneumonectomy and bilobectomy had fewer comorbidities than lobectomy patients. After propensity matching 30-day mortality of bilobectomy was comparable with left pneumonectomy (hazard ratio [HR], 1.35; 95% CI, 0.95-1.91; P = .09) and significantly worse than left (HR, 0.40; 95% CI, 0.29-0.56; P < .0001) or right (HR, 0.43; 95% CI, 0.31-0.59; P < .0001) lobectomy. Bilobectomy was associated with a survival advantage compared with right pneumonectomy (HR, 2.54; 95% CI, 1.72-3.74; P < .0001). Thirty-day morbidity was higher for bilobectomy compared with lobectomy, and upper bilobectomy had a significant unadjusted 30-day mortality advantage compared with lower bilobectomy (98.3% vs 97%, P = .04). CONCLUSIONS: The morbidity and mortality of bilobectomy is significantly worse than lobectomy and is comparable with left pneumonectomy. The addition of middle lobectomy to a pulmonary resection is not without risk and should be carefully considered during preoperative risk stratification.

Brief Report: Increasing Prevalence of Ground-Glass Nodules and Semisolid Lung Lesions on Outpatient Chest Computed Tomography Scans.

Introduction: The increased use of cross-sectional imaging frequently identifies a growing number of lung nodules that require follow-up imaging studies and physician consultations. We report here the frequency of finding a ground-glass nodule (GGN) or semisolid lung lesion (SSL) in the past decade within a large academic health system. Methods: A radiology system database review was performed on all outpatient adult chest computed tomography (CT) scans between 2013 and 2022. Radiology reports were searched for the terms "ground-glass nodule," "subsolid," and "semisolid" to identify reports with findings potentially concerning for an adenocarcinoma spectrum lesion. Results: A total of 175,715 chest CT scans were performed between 2013 and 2022, with a steadily increasing number every year from 10,817 in 2013 to 21,916 performed in the year 2022. Identification of GGN or SSL on any outpatient CT increased from 5.9% in 2013 to 9.2% in 2022, representing a total of 2019 GGN or SSL reported on CT scans in 2022. The percentage of CT scans with a GGN or SSL finding increased during the study period in men and women and across all age groups above 50 years old. Conclusions: The total number of CT scans performed and the percentage of chest CT scans with GGN or SSL has more than doubled between 2013 and 2022; currently, 9% of all chest CT scans report a GGN or SSL. Although not all GGN or SSL radiographic findings represent true adenocarcinoma spectrum lesions, they are a growing burden to patients and health systems, and better methods to risk stratify radiographic lesions are needed.

Telehealth Availability for Cancer Care During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Cross-Sectional Study.

BACKGROUND: Telehealth was an important strategy for maintaining continuity of cancer care during the coronavirus pandemic and has continued to play a role in outpatient care; however, it is unknown whether services are equally available across cancer hospitals. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to assess telehealth availability at cancer hospitals for new and established patients with common cancers to contextualize the impact of access barriers to technology on overall access to health care. METHODS: We conducted a national cross-sectional secret shopper study from June to November 2020 to assess telehealth availability at cancer hospitals for new and established patients with colorectal, breast, and skin (melanoma) cancer. We examined facility-level factors to determine predictors of telehealth availability. RESULTS: Of the 312 investigated facilities, 97.1% (n=303) provided telehealth services for at least 1 cancer site. Telehealth was less available to new compared to established patients (n=226, 72% vs n=301, 97.1%). The surveyed cancer hospitals more commonly offered telehealth visits for breast cancer care (n=266, 85%) and provided lower access to telehealth for skin (melanoma) cancer care (n=231, 74%). Most hospitals (n=163, 52%) offered telehealth for all 3 cancer types. Telehealth availability was weakly correlated across cancer types within a given facility for new (r=0.16, 95% CI 0.09-0.23) and established (r=0.14, 95% CI 0.08-0.21) patients. Telehealth was more commonly available for new patients at National Cancer Institute-designated facilities, medical school-affiliated facilities, and major teaching sites, with high total admissions and below-average timeliness of care. Telehealth availability for established patients was highest at Academic Comprehensive Cancer Programs, nongovernment and nonprofit facilities, medical school-affiliated facilities, Accountable Care Organizations, and facilities with a high number of total admissions. CONCLUSIONS: Despite an increase in telehealth services for patients with cancer during the COVID-19 pandemic, we identified differences in access across cancer hospitals, which may relate to measures of clinical volume, affiliation, and infrastructure.

Assessment of a collaborative treatment model for trimodal management of esophageal cancer.

Background: Patients with esophageal cancer often receive care in a collaborative (multi-institutional) treatment model as opposed to a single institutional model. The effect of a collaborative model on the quality of trimodality therapy and survival is unknown. Methods: The National Cancer Database (NCDB) was used to identify patients receiving neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (CRT) followed by esophagectomy for esophageal cancer between 2012-2017. Patients who received neoadjuvant therapy and surgery at a single institution were compared to those that received collaborative treatment across multiple institutions. Outcomes included adherence to guideline recommended multiagent chemotherapy, receipt of 41.4-50.4 Gy of radiation, R0 resection, pathologic complete response (pCR), and 5-year survival. Sociodemographics, comorbidities, and tumor characteristics were assessed in bivariate and multivariable analysis. Results: Among 8,396 patients identified, 39% received treatment at a single institution, while 61% received collaborative treatment. Median travel distance to the site of esophagectomy was two times greater for patients receiving collaborative treatment (30 vs. 15 miles; P<0.001). Patients in the collaborative cohort were less likely to receive guideline-recommended multiagent chemotherapy (85% vs. 96%; P<0.001) and 41.4-50.4 Gy of radiation (89% vs. 91%; P=0.01). R0 resection rates were similar (94.4% vs. 93.7%; P=0.17). Patients who received collaborative treatment had an increased rate of pCR (24% vs. 22%; P=0.02). Overall, 90-day and 5-year survival were 92.9% and 42.6% respectively and did not differ significantly between the two groups. Conclusions: Collaborative trimodality treatment of esophageal cancer is a common and reasonable practice model, which may alleviate patient travel burden with only a modest impact on the quality of CRT, pCR, 90-day survival, and 5-year survival.

Alterations in Cancer Treatment During the First Year of the COVID-19 Pandemic in the US.

Importance: The COVID-19 pandemic created challenges to the evaluation and treatment of cancer, and abrupt resource diversion toward patients with COVID-19 put cancer treatment on hold for many patients. Previous reports have shown substantial declines in cancer screening and diagnoses in 2020; however, the extent to which the delivery of cancer care was altered remains unclear. Objective: To assess alterations in cancer treatment in the US during the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic. Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective cohort study used data from the National Cancer Database (NCDB) on patients older than 18 years with newly diagnosed cancer from January 1, 2018, to December 31, 2020. Main Outcomes and Measures: The main outcomes were accessibility (time to treatment, travel distance, and multi-institutional care), availability (proportional changes in cancer treatment between years), and utilization (reductions by treatment modality, hospital type) of cancer treatment in 2020 compared with 2018 to 2019. Autoregressive models forecasted expected findings for 2020 based on observations from prior years. Results: Of 1 229 654 patients identified in the NCDB in 2020, 1 074 225 were treated for cancer, representing a 16.8% reduction from what was expected. Patients were predominately female (53.8%), with a median age of 66 years (IQR, 57-74 years), similar to demographics in 2018 and 2019. Median time between diagnosis and treatment was 26 days (IQR, 0-36 days) in 2020, and median travel distance for care was 11.1 miles (IQR, 5.0-25.3 miles), similar to 2018 and 2019. In 2020, fewer patients traveled longer distances (20.2% reduction of patients traveling >35 miles). The proportions of patients treated with chemotherapy (32.0%), radiation (29.5%), and surgery (57.1%) were similar to those in 2018 and 2019. Overall, 146 805 fewer patients than expected underwent surgery, 80 480 fewer received radiation, and 68 014 fewer received chemotherapy. Academic hospitals experienced the greatest reduction in cancer surgery and treatment, with a decrease of approximately 484 patients (-19.0%) per hospital compared with 99 patients (-12.6%) at community hospitals and 110 patients (-12.8%) at integrated networks. Conclusions and Relevance: This study found that among patients diagnosed with cancer in 2020, access and availability of treatment remained intact; however, reductions in treated patients varied across treatment modalities and were greater at academic hospitals than at community hospitals and integrated networks compared with expected values. These results suggest the resilience of cancer service lines and frame the economic losses from reductions in cancer treatment during the pandemic.

Association of Wildfire Exposure While Recovering From Lung Cancer Surgery With Overall Survival.

Importance: With a changing climate, wildfire activity in the US has increased dramatically, presenting multifaceted and compounding health hazards. Individuals discharged from the hospital following surgical resection of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) are potentially at higher risk from wildfires' health hazards. Objective: To assess the association between wildfire exposure and postoperative long-term overall survival among patients with lung cancer in the US. Design, Setting, and Participants: In this cohort study, individuals who underwent curative-intent NSCLC resection between January 1, 2004, and December 31, 2019, were selected from the National Cancer Database. Daily wildfire information was aggregated at the zip code level from the National Aeronautics and Space Administration Fire Information for Resource Management System. The data analysis was performed between July 19, 2022, and April 14, 2023. Exposure: An active wildfire detected at the zip code of residence between 0 and 3, 4 and 6, or 7 and 12 months after NSCLC surgery. Main Outcome: Overall survival was defined as the interval between age at hospital discharge and age at death, last contact, or study end, whichever came first. Cox proportional hazards were used for estimating hazard ratios (HRs) adjusted for sex, region, metropolitan category, health insurance type, comorbidities, tumor size, lymph node involvement, era, and facility type. Results: A total of 466 912 individuals included in the study (249 303 female and [53.4] and 217 609 male [46.6%]; mean [SD] age at diagnosis, 67.3 [9.9] years), with 48 582 (10.4%) first exposed to a wildfire between 0 and 3 months, 48 328 (10.6%) between 4 and 6 months, and 71 735 (15.3%) between 7 and 12 months following NSCLC surgery. Individuals exposed to a wildfire within 3 months (adjusted HR [AHR], 1.43; 95% CI, 1.41-1.45), between 4 and 6 months (AHR, 1.39; 95% CI, 1.37-1.41), and between 7 and 12 months (AHR, 1.17; 95% CI, 1.15-1.19) after discharge from the hospital following stage I to III NSCLC resection had worse overall survival than unexposed individuals. Conclusions: In this cohort study, wildfire exposure was associated with worse overall survival following NSCLC surgical resection, suggesting that patients with lung cancer are at greater risk from the health hazards of wildfires and need to be prioritized in climate adaptation efforts.

Association Between Metastatic Pattern and Prognosis in Stage IV Gastric Cancer: Potential for Stage Classification Reform.

PURPOSE: This study aims to clarify the association between metastatic pattern and prognosis in stage IV gastric cancer, with a focus on patients presenting with metastases limited to nonregional lymph nodes. METHODS: In this retrospective cohort study, the National Cancer Database was used to identify patients ≥ 18 years of age diagnosed with stage IV gastric cancer between 2016 and 2019. Patients were stratified according to pattern of metastatic disease at diagnosis: nonregional lymph nodes only ("stage IV-nodal"), single systemic organ ("stage IV-single organ"), or multiple organs ("stage IV-multi-organ"). Survival was assessed by Kaplan-Meier curves and multivariable Cox models in unadjusted and propensity score-matched samples. RESULTS: Overall, 15,050 patients were identified, including 1,349 (8.7%) stage IV-nodal patients. Most patients in each group received chemotherapy [68.6% of stage IV-nodal patients, 65.2% of stage IV-single organ patients, and 63.5% of stage IV-multi-organ patients (p = 0.003)]. Stage IV-nodal patients exhibited better median survival (10.5 months, 95% CI 9.7-11.9, p < 0.001) than single organ (8.0, 95% CI 7.6-8.2) and multi-organ (5.7, 95% CI 5.4-6.0) patients. In the multivariable Cox model, stage IV-nodal patients also exhibited better survival (HR 0.79, 95% CI 0.73-0.85, p < 0.001) than single organ (reference) and multi-organ (HR 1.27, 95% CI 1.22-1.33, p < 0.001) patients. CONCLUSIONS: Nearly 9% of clinical stage IV gastric cancer patients have their distant disease confined to nonregional lymph nodes. These patients were managed similarly to other stage IV patients but experienced a better prognosis, suggesting opportunities to introduce M1 staging subclassifications.

Association of Lymph Node Sampling and Clinical Volume in Lobectomy for Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Sampling of ≥10 lymph nodes during lobectomy for non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) was a previous surveillance metric and potential quality metric of the American College of Surgeons Commission on Cancer. We sought to determine guideline adherence and its relationship to hospital lobectomy volume within The Society of Thoracic Surgeons General Thoracic Surgery Database. METHODS: Participant centers providing elective lobectomy for NSCLC within The Society of Thoracic Surgeons General Thoracic Surgery Database (2012-2019) were divided into tertiles according to annual volume. Average hospital nodal harvest of ≥10 nodes per lobectomy defined the primary outcome. Univariable analysis compared average patient and operative characteristics between the participant centers. Multivariable logistic regression was used to determine independent factors associated with average clinical center nodal harvest of ≥10 nodes. RESULTS: Median annual lobectomy volume was 6.2, 19.9, and 42.7 for low-, medium-, and high-volume participant centers. Among 305 centers and 43 597 patients, 5.6% of lobectomies occurred in low-volume centers, 24.0% in medium-volume centers, and 70.4% in high-volume centers. Average rates of ≥10 nodes per lobectomy were excised in 44.0% of low-volume centers, 70.6% of medium-volume centers, and 75.2% of high-volume centers (P < .001). On multivariable analysis, average nodal excision of ≥10 nodes was strongly associated with medium-volume (odds ratio, 2.94; CI, 1.57-5.50, P < .01) and high-volume (odds ratio, 3.82; CI, 1.95-7.46; P < .001) participant centers. CONCLUSIONS: Although higher center volume and increased nodal harvest are associated, 25% of high-volume centers average a rate of <10 lymph nodes per lobectomy for NSCLC. Low nodal yield may underestimate stage, with implications for adjuvant therapy and long-term survival.

Utilization and Outcomes of Radiation in Stage IV Esophageal Cancer.

Introduction: For patients with stage IV esophageal cancer, esophageal radiation may be used selectively for local control and palliation. We aimed to understand patterns of radiation administration among patients with stage IV esophageal cancer and any potential survival associations. Methods: In this retrospective cohort study, the National Cancer Database was queried for patients with metastatic stage IV esophageal cancer diagnosed between 2016 and 2019. Patterns of radiation use were identified. Survival was determined through Kaplan-Meier analysis of propensity score-matched pairs of patients who did and did not receive radiotherapy and time-to-event models. Results: Overall, 12,088 patients with stage IV esophageal cancer were identified, including 32.7% who received esophageal radiation. The median age was 65 (interquartile range [IQR]: 58-73) years, and 82.6% were male. Among the irradiated patients, the median total radiation dose was 35 (IQR: 30-50) Gy administered in a median of 14 (IQR: 10-25) fractions given in 22 (IQR: 14-39) days. Overall, esophageal radiation was not associated with better survival (log-rank p = 0.41). When stratified by radiation dose, a survival advantage (over no radiation) was found in the 1144 patients (29% of the irradiated patients) who received 45 to 59.9 Gy (time ratio = 1.28, 95% confidence interval: 1.20-1.37, p < 0.001) and the 88 patients (2.2%) who received 60 to 80 Gy (time ratio = 1.37, 95% confidence interval: 1.11-1.69, p = 0.003). Conclusions: One-third of the patients with metastatic stage IV esophageal cancer in the National Cancer Database received esophageal radiation. Most received a radiation dose that, although consistent with palliative regimens, was not associated with a survival advantage. Further study is warranted to understand the indications for radiation in stage IV esophageal cancer and potentially reevaluate the most appropriate radiation dose for palliation.