Staging Concordance and Guideline-Concordant Treatment for Esophageal Adenocarcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Treatment selection for patients with esophageal adenocarcinoma is predicated on clinical staging information, which is inaccurate in 20% to 30% of cases and could impact the delivery of guideline-concordant treatment. We aimed to evaluate the association between staging concordance at the patient and hospital levels with the delivery of guideline-concordant treatment among esophageal adenocarcinoma patients. METHODS: This was a national cohort study of resected esophageal adenocarcinoma patients in the National Cancer Data Base (2006 to 2015) treated either with upfront resection or neoadjuvant therapy followed by surgery. Patient- and hospital-level clinical and pathologic staging concordance and deviations from treatment guidelines were ascertained. For neoadjuvant therapy patients, staging concordance was predicted through Bayesian analysis. Reliability adjustment was used when evaluating hospital-level concordance. RESULTS: Among 9393 esophageal adenocarcinoma patients treated at 927 hospitals, 41% had upfront surgery. Among upfront surgery patients, staging concordance was 85.1% for T1N0 and 86.9% for T3-T4N+ disease, but less than 50% for all others. Among patients treated with neoadjuvant therapy, treatment downstaging was observed in 33.9%. Deviations from treatment guidelines were identified in 38.5% of upfront surgery patients and 3.3% of neoadjuvant therapy patients. The proportion of concordantly staged patients ranged from 60.1% to 87.9%, and deviations from treatment guidelines were observed among 14.9% to 22.7% of the patients. Patient staging concordance increased, and deviations from guidelines decreased, as hospital-level concordance increased (trend test, P values less than .001 for all). CONCLUSIONS: Deviations from treatment guidelines in esophageal adenocarcinoma patients appear to be a function of inaccurate clinical staging information, which should be a new focus for quality improvement efforts.

Parenteral or Enteral Arginine Supplementation Safety and Efficacy.

Arginine supplementation has the potential to improve the health of patients. Its use in hospitalized patients has been a controversial topic in the nutrition literature, especially concerning supplementation of septic patients. In this article, we review the relevant literature both for and against the use of arginine in critically ill, surgical, and hospitalized patients. The effect of critical illness on arginine metabolism is reviewed, as is its use in septic and critically ill patients. Although mounting evidence supports immunonutrition, there are only a few studies that suggest that this is safe in patients with severe sepsis. The use of arginine has been shown to benefit a variety of critically ill patients. It should be considered for inclusion in combinations of immunonutrients or commercial formulations for groups in whom its benefit has been reported consistently, such as those who have suffered trauma and those in acute surgical settings. The aims of this review are to discuss the role of arginine in health, the controversy surrounding arginine supplementation of septic patients, and the use of arginine in critically ill patients.