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.

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.

Evaluating information loss in the National Cancer Database from cases lost to follow-up.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Cancer registries must focus on data capture which returns value while reducing resource burden with minimal loss of data. Identifying the optimum length of follow-up data collection for patients with cancer achieves this goal. METHODS: A two-step analysis using entropy calculations to assess information gain for each follow-up year, and second-order differences to compare survival outcomes between the defined follow-up periods and lifetime follow-up. A total of 391 567 adult cases, deidentified in the National Cancer Database and diagnosed in 1989. Comparisons examined a subset of 61 908 lung cancer cases, 48 387 colon and rectal cancer cases, and 64 134 breast cancer cases in adults. A total of 4133 pediatric cases were diagnosed in 1989 examining 1065 leukemia cases and 494 lymphoma cases. RESULTS: Annual increases in information gain fell below 1% after 16 years of follow-up for adult cases and 9 years for pediatric cases. Comparison of second-order differences showed 62% of the comparisons were similar between 15 years and lifetime follow-up when examining restricted mean survival time. In addition, 90% of the comparisons were statistically similar when comparing hazard ratios. CONCLUSIONS: Survival analysis using 15 years postdiagnosis follow-up showed minimal differences in information gain compared to lifetime follow-up.

Twenty-Five Years of Cancer Follow-Up; Is the Data Worth the Effort?

BACKGROUND: Substantial resources are dedicated to long-term follow-up within cancer registries; however, the completeness of these data is poorly characterized. Our objectives were to quantify long-term cancer follow-up data completeness and the effort required to collect these data using the National Cancer Database (NCDB). METHODS: To quantify data completeness, patients diagnosed with cancer in 1989 were identified in the NCDB and loss to follow-up rates were assessed for 25 years after diagnosis. To quantify data collection effort, patients diagnosed from 1989 to 2014 who were alive and eligible for follow-up in 2014 were identified and the effort to perform patient follow-up was obtained via a survey of tumor registrars. The effort to perform follow-up beyond various intervals after diagnosis was calculated. RESULTS: In total, 484,201 patients at 958 hospitals were diagnosed with cancer in 1989. After 5 years, 6.5% of patients were lost to follow-up (13.1% of living patients), 50.3% were deceased, and 43.2% had ongoing follow-up. After 15 years, 22.9% were lost to follow-up (68.7% of living patients), 66.7% were deceased, and 10.5% had ongoing follow-up. By 25 years, loss to follow-up increased to 28.6% (93.7% of living patients), 69.5% were deceased, and 1.9% had ongoing follow-up. In 2014, 522,838 h were spent performing follow-up for 2,091,353 patients at 1456 hospitals who were >15 years from their initial cancer diagnosis. CONCLUSIONS: While 5-year follow-up is excellent in the NCDB, loss to follow-up increases over time. The impact of curtailing data collection is under investigation and follow-up duration requirements will be re-evaluated.

Trends in Patient Volume by Hospital Type and the Association of These Trends With Time to Cancer Treatment Initiation.

Importance: Increasing demand for cancer care may be outpacing the capacity of hospitals to provide timely treatment, particularly at referral centers such as National Cancer Institute (NCI)-designated and academic centers. Whether the rate of patient volume growth has strained hospital capacity to provide timely treatment is unknown. Objective: To evaluate trends in patient volume by hospital type and the association between a hospital's annual patient volume growth and time to treatment initiation (TTI) for patients with cancer. Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective, hospital-level, cross-sectional study used longitudinal data from the National Cancer Database from January 1, 2007, to December 31, 2016. Adult patients older than 40 years who had received a diagnosis of 1 of the 10 most common incident cancers and initiated their treatment at a Commission on Cancer-accredited hospital were included. Data were analyzed between December 19, 2019, and March 27, 2020. Exposures: The mean annual rate of patient volume growth at a hospital. Main Outcomes and Measures: The main outcome was TTI, defined as the number of days between diagnosis and the first cancer treatment. The association between a hospital's mean annual rate of patient volume growth and TTI was assessed using a linear mixed-effects model containing a patient volume × time interaction. The mean annual change in TTI over the study period by hospital type was estimated by including a hospital type × time interaction term. Results: The study sample included 4 218 577 patients (mean [SD] age, 65.0 [11.4] years; 56.6% women) treated at 1351 hospitals. From 2007 to 2016, patient volume increased 40% at NCI centers, 25% at academic centers, and 8% at community hospitals. In 2007, the mean TTI was longer at NCI and academic centers than at community hospitals (NCI: 50 days [95% CI, 48-52 days]; academic: 43 days [95% CI, 42-44 days]; community: 37 days [95% CI, 36-37 days]); however, the mean annual increase in TTI was greater at community hospitals (0.56 days; 95% CI, 0.49-0.62 days) than at NCI centers (-0.73 days; 95% CI, -0.95 to -0.51 days) and academic centers (0.14 days; 95% CI, 0.03-0.26 days). An annual volume growth rate of 100 patients, a level observed at less than 1% of hospitals, was associated with a mean increase in TTI of 0.24 days (95% CI, 0.18-0.29 days). Conclusions and Relevance: In this cross-sectional study, from 2007 to 2016, across the studied cancer types, patients increasingly initiated their cancer treatment at NCI and academic centers. Although increases in patient volume at these centers outpaced that at community hospitals, faster growth was not associated with clinically meaningful treatment delays.

Compliance with Cancer Quality Measures Over Time and Their Association with Survival Outcomes: The Commission on Cancer's Experience with the Quality Measure Requiring at Least 12 Regional Lymph Nodes to be Removed and Analyzed with Colon Cancer Resections.

BACKGROUND: Many quality measures in cancer care are process measures. The rates of compliance for these measures over time have not been well described, and the relationships between measure compliance and survival are not well understood. METHODS: The National Cancer Database, representing cancer registry data from approximately 1500 Commission on Cancer (CoC) cancer programs, was queried to determine the rates of compliance, with the CoC's colon cancer quality measure requiring 12 regional lymph nodes be removed at resection. Data were assessed in 2003, before the measure was reported to programs, through 2015. Measure compliance and risk-adjusted survival were examined by hospital type. RESULTS: From 2003 to 2015, 544,018 cases of colon cancer were analyzed for number of nodes removed. In 2003, compliance was 52.8% and National Cancer Institute (NCI) centers had the highest compliance rate (69.0%), followed by academic cancer centers (61.9%), comprehensive community hospitals (50.9%), and community hospitals (44.0%). Between 2003 and 2015, compliance improved for all hospital types, although differences remained. Risk-adjusted survival in 2009 was better at NCI centers [hazard ratio (HR) 0.76] than at academic cancer centers (HR 0.90), which had better survivals than comprehensive community programs (HR 0.93) when compared with patients treated at community hospitals. CONCLUSION: After introduction of this quality measure, performance at CoC-accredited hospitals improved over the subsequent 13 years, and survival by hospital type paralleled measure compliance by hospital type. This demonstrated measurement may be associated with improvements in performance, and that there are differences in performance and outcome by hospital type.

Survival As a Quality Metric of Cancer Care: Use of the National Cancer Data Base to Assess Hospital Performance.

PURPOSE: Survival is considered an important indicator of the quality of cancer care, but the validity of different methodologies to measure comparative survival rates is less well understood. We explored whether the National Cancer Data Base (NCDB) could serve as a source of unadjusted and risk-adjusted cancer survival data and whether these data could be used as quality indicators for individual hospitals or in the aggregate by hospital type. METHODS: The NCDB, an aggregate of > 1,500 hospital cancer registries, was queried to analyze unadjusted and risk-adjusted hazards of death for patients with stage III breast cancer (n = 116,787) and stage IIIB or IV non-small-cell lung cancer (n = 252,392). Data were analyzed at the individual hospital level and by hospital type. RESULTS: At the hospital level, after risk adjustment, few hospitals had comparative risk-adjusted survival rates that were statistically better or worse. By hospital type, National Cancer Institute-designated comprehensive cancer centers had risk-adjusted survival ratios that were statistically significantly better than those of academic cancer centers and community hospitals. CONCLUSION: Using the NCDB as the data source, survival rates for patients with stage III breast cancer and stage IIIB or IV non-small-cell lung cancer were statistically better at National Cancer Institute-designated comprehensive cancer centers when compared with other hospital types. Compared with academic hospitals, risk-adjusted survival was lower in community hospitals. At the individual hospital level, after risk adjustment, few hospitals were shown to have statistically better or worse survival, suggesting that, using NCDB data, survival may not be a good metric to determine relative quality of cancer care at this level.

Reliability of the American College of Surgeons Commission on Cancer's Quality of Care Measures for Hospital and Surgeon Profiling.

BACKGROUND: Efforts to improve healthcare quality involve profiling hospitals and providers. Whether cancer-specific measures can be used reliably for profiling purposes has not been reported. STUDY DESIGN: Hospitals and surgeons were profiled with 3 measures assessing the adequacy of lymphadenectomy for colon (ie at least 12 regional lymph nodes [12RLN] are removed and pathologically examined for resected colon cancer), gastric (ie at least 15 regional lymph nodes [G15RLN] are removed and pathologically examined for resected gastric cancer), and non-small cell lung (ie at least 10 regional lymph nodes [10RLN] are removed and pathologically examined for American Joint Committee on Cancer stage IA, IB, IIA, and IIB resected non-small cell lung cancer) cancers using hierarchical models. National Cancer Data Base cases spanning 2010 to 2013 were included if they met measure eligibility. Reliability estimates for hospital and surgeon performance across cumulative years of data (2013, 2012 to 2013, 2011 to 2013, and 2010 to 2013) were calculated with and without risk adjustment. Surgeon caseload minimums were projected to achieve reliabilities of 0.40 and 0.70. RESULTS: Reliability estimates tended to increase with longer periods of data collection but at different rates, depending on measure, level of aggregation, and performance outlier status. Profiling hospitals using 12RLN with 2 years of data yielded a median reliability of 0.72 (interquartile range [IQR] 0.55 to 0.83); however, 4 years of data yielded a median reliability of only 0.31 (IQR 0.14 to 0.54) for surgeons. The G15RLN performance was poor overall; 10RLN had high reliability at both hospital (0.74; IQR 0.50 to 0.86) and surgeon (0.61; IQR 0.34 to 0.80) levels using 1 year of data, but the literature questions this measure's validity. Few surgeons could achieve appropriate levels of reliability regardless of increased data collection duration. CONCLUSIONS: Profiling hospitals based on measures such as these can achieve acceptable reliability in reasonable timeframes, but does not always. Either lower levels of reliability should be accepted to profile surgeons with these measures or longer timeframes should be used.

National Evaluation of Hospital Performance on the New Commission on Cancer Melanoma Quality Measures.

INTRODUCTION: To increase adherence to cancer management guidelines, the Commission on Cancer (CoC) developed and approved five melanoma quality measures in 2015. Our objectives were to evaluate formally the national performance of these melanoma measures and to examine patient, tumor, and hospital characteristics associated with adherence. METHODS: From the National Cancer Data Base (2012), patients with invasive, nonmetastatic melanoma were identified. Inclusion and exclusion criteria were based on the CoC definition for each measure. Patient-level and hospital-level adherence rates were calculated for the five measures. A hospital was deemed "compliant" if it met the CoC standard, which requires 80 % of patients to receive the measure-specific recommended care. Patient, tumor, and hospital characteristics potentially associated with higher likelihood of adherence at the patient-level were estimated using hierarchical random-effects logistic regression models. RESULTS: A total of 31,598 patients from 1343 hospitals were examined. Patient-level adherence rates varied from 31.6 % (Measure 5: ≥10 axillary lymph nodes removed/examined) to 72.6 % (Measure 1: sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) appropriateness measure). Hospital-level adherence rates, ranged from 19.3 % of hospitals (N = 538 hospitals for Measure 5) to 44.8 % of hospitals (N = 1090 hospitals for Measure 3: completion lymph node dissection after positive SLNB). No hospital-level factors (e.g., teaching status) were consistently associated with better adherence. CONCLUSIONS: National adherence rates to the five new CoC melanoma quality metrics are low, and most hospitals would not meet the CoC requirement of 80 % adherence. Feedback for performance of these measures to hospitals, decisions support tools, and educational initiatives are needed to improve guideline adherence.

Doubling of 30-Day Mortality by 90 Days After Esophagectomy: A Critical Measure of Outcomes for Quality Improvement.

OBJECTIVES: Our objectives were to (1) compare 30- and 90-day mortality rates after esophagectomy, (2) compare drivers of 30- and 90-day mortality, and (3) examine whether 90-day mortality affects hospital rankings. BACKGROUND: Operative mortality has traditionally been assessed at 30 days. Ninety-day mortality has been suggested as a more appropriate indicator of quality, particularly after complex cancer surgery. METHODS: Esophagectomies for nonmetastatic esophageal cancer patients diagnosed between 2007 and 2011 were identified in the National Cancer Data Base. Mortality rates were examined by patient demographics, tumor characteristics, and hospital procedural volume. Risk-adjusted hierarchical logistic regression models examined hospital performance for mortality. RESULTS: A total of 15,796 esophagectomy patients at 977 hospitals were available for analysis. Ninety-day overall mortality was more than double the 30-day mortality (8.9% vs 4.2%; P < 0.0001). In multivariate analysis, while both 30- and 90-day mortality were associated with patient factors such as age, comorbidity, and hospital volume, only 90-day mortality was influenced by tumor- and management-related variables such as stage, tumor location, and receipt of neoadjuvant therapy. Hospital performance was examined as top 10%, middle 10% to 90%, and lowest 10% as ranked using risk-adjusted odds of mortality. There was moderate correlation between ranking based on 30- and 90-day mortality [weighted κ = 0.45 (95% confidence interval, 0.39-0.52)]. Compared with 30-day mortality rankings, nearly 20% of hospitals changed their ranking category when 90-day mortality rankings were used. CONCLUSIONS: Examination of 90-day mortality after esophagectomy reflects cancer patient management decisions and may provide actionable targets for quality improvement.

Completeness of American Cancer Registry Treatment Data: implications for quality of care research.

BACKGROUND: Evaluating and improving the quality of cancer care requires complete information on cancer stage and treatment. Hospital-based registries are a key tool in this effort, but reports in the 1990s showed that they fail to identify a major fraction of outpatient-administered treatment, including chemotherapy, endocrine therapy, and radiation. This can limit their value for evaluating patterns and quality of care. To determine the completeness of registry data in more recent years, we linked administrative claims from 2 private payers in Ohio to the National Cancer Data Base and Ohio Cancer Incidence and Surveillance System. METHODS: Incident breast and colorectal cancers among Ohio residents diagnosed in 2004-2006 were identified from linkage of the National Cancer Data Base, Ohio Cancer Incidence and Surveillance System, and payer insurance claims using ICD-9 and CPT procedure codes, and ICD-9 diagnosis codes. Linkage was accomplished using patient demographics, surgery dates, and hospital facility. Treatment found in claims and registry data were compared and assessed using the κ statistic. RESULTS: The analytic cohort included 2,552 breast and 822 colorectal cases. Results showed high agreement for breast surgery type, and moderately high agreement for colorectal surgery type. For breast cases, the registries captured 87% of chemotherapy, 86% of radiation, and 64% of endocrine treatment in claims. For colorectal cases, the registry captured 83% of chemotherapy and 84% of radiation in claims. CONCLUSIONS: Hospital-based registries for breast and colon cancer diagnosed in 2004-2006 captured about 85% of radiation and chemotherapy data compared with claims data, a higher percentage than earlier reports. These findings provide direction and a cautionary note to those using registry data for study of patterns and quality of systemic and radiation therapy care.

Primary CNS germ cell tumors in Japan and the United States: an analysis of 4 tumor registries.

Intracranial germ cell tumors (GCTs) are relatively rare. Their incidence has been considered to be higher in East Asia than in the United States. This study estimates the incidence of CNS GCTs in Japan and the United States, investigates gender discrepancies in each country, and describes treatment outcomes. Data on primary CNS GCTs from 4 databases were utilized: population-based malignant incidence data from (1) the Japan Cancer Surveillance Research Group (2004-2006; 14 registries), malignant and nonmalignant incidence data from (2) the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program (2004-2008; 17 registries), and hospital-based observed survival data from (3) the Brain Tumor Registry of Japan (1984-2000) and (4) the US National Cancer Data Base (1990-2003). Incidence rates per 100 000 for malignant GCTs were not statistically significantly different between Japan (males = 0.143, females = 0.046) and the United States (males = 0.118, females = 0.030). The malignant incidence-rate ratio was higher for pineal GCTs versus nonpineal (ie, the rest of the brain) GCTs in Japan (11.5:1 vs 1.9:1, respectively) and the United States (16.0:1 vs 1.7:1, respectively). In general, 5-year survival estimates were high: over 75% for all GCTs, and over 81% for germinomas, regardless of the type of treatment in either Japan or the United States. The incidence of primary GCTs is similar between Japan and the United States and has the same gender-based patterns by location. High rates of survival were observed in both countries.

Breast cancer care in the community: challenges, opportunities, and outcomes.

In the USA, 80% of patients with breast cancer are treated by community breast surgeons. NCDB data indicate that there are only small differences in outcomes between lower volume cancer programs and higher volume programs. There is some evidence that breast cancer patients of high-volume breast focused surgeons may have improved outcomes. This article discusses the challenges community breast surgeons face and some ways that the quality of care could be monitored and improved. Quality reporting programs of the Commission on Cancer and Mastery of Breast Surgery Program of the American Society of Breast Surgeons are recommended as tools to track and improve outcomes in breast cancer care.

The National Cancer Database report on advanced-stage epithelial ovarian cancer: impact of hospital surgical case volume on overall survival and surgical treatment paradigm.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the effect of hospital procedure volume and other prognostic variables on overall survival outcome and likelihood of receiving standard recommended care among patients with advanced-stage epithelial ovarian cancer. METHODS: The National Cancer Data Base (NCDB) was searched for patients undergoing primary treatment for FIGO Stage IIIC/IV epithelial ovarian cancer from 1996 to 2005. The average annual surgical procedure volume was derived for each reporting hospital. Quartile ranking discriminated four groups of hospitals based on annual surgical volume: low (<9), intermediate (9-20), high (21-35), and very high (>35). Cox proportional hazards modeling was used to determine the impact on overall survival of hospital surgical volume adjusted for treatment, FIGO/AJCC stage, ethnicity, age, payer status, household income, and tumor grade. Binomial multivariate logistic regression modeling was used to assess differences in patient demographic, tumor, and treatment variables between high/very high volume hospitals and low/intermediate volume hospitals. RESULTS: A total of 45,929 patients were identified. After adjusting for other factors, overall survival was significantly correlated with hospital case volume: very high (reference); high (HR 0.98, 95% CI=0.92-1.04); intermediate (HR 1.08, 95% CI=1.01-1.15); and low (HR 1.14, 95% CI=1.07-1.22). Compared to low and intermediate volume hospitals, patients treated at very high and high-volume hospitals were less likely to receive neo-adjuvant chemotherapy (OR=0.33, 95% CI=1.18-1.50) or surgery alone (OR=0.77, 95% CI=0.73-0.82) instead of initial surgery and adjuvant chemotherapy. CONCLUSIONS: Hospital ovarian cancer surgical volume >or=21 cases/year is associated with a higher likelihood of patients with Stage IIIC/IV epithelial ovarian cancer receiving standard treatment (surgery followed by adjuvant chemotherapy). Even after adjusting for treatment paradigm and other factors, hospital volume >or=21 cases/year was significantly predictive of improved overall survival outcome.

Women surgeons in the new millennium.

BACKGROUND: Women are increasingly entering the surgical profession. OBJECTIVE: To assess professional and personal/family life situations, perceptions, and challenges for women vs men surgeons. DESIGN: National survey of American Board of Surgery-certified surgeons. PARTICIPANTS: A questionnaire was mailed to all women and men surgeons who were board certified in 1988, 1992, 1996, 2000, or 2004. Of 3507 surgeons, 895 (25.5%) responded. Among these, 178 (20.3%) were women and 698 (79.7%) were men. RESULTS: Most women and men surgeons would choose their profession again (women, 82.5%; men, 77.5%; P = .15). On multivariate analysis, men surgeons (odds ratio [OR], 2.5) and surgeons of a younger generation (certified in 2000 or 2004; OR, 1.3) were less likely to favor part-time work opportunities for surgeons. Most of the surgeons were married (75.6% of women vs 91.7% of men, P < .001). On multivariate analysis, women surgeons (OR, 5.0) and surgeons of a younger generation (OR, 1.9) were less likely to have children. More women than men surgeons had their first child later in life, while already in surgical practice (62.4% vs 32.0%, P < .001). The spouse was the offspring's primary caretaker for 26.9% of women surgeons vs 79.4% of men surgeons (P < .001). More women surgeons than men surgeons thought that maternity leave was important (67.8% vs 30.8%, P < .001) and that child care should be available at work (86.5% vs 69.7%, P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Women considering a surgical career should be aware that most women surgeons would choose their profession again. Strategies to maximize recruitment and retention of women surgeons should include serious consideration of alternative work schedules and optimization of maternity leave and child care opportunities.

Career and lifestyle satisfaction among surgeons: what really matters? The National Lifestyles in Surgery Today Survey.

BACKGROUND: Optimizing recruitment of the next surgical generation is paramount. Unfortunately, many nonsurgeons perceive surgeons' lifestyle as undesirable. It is unknown, however, whether the surgeons-important opinion makers about their profession-are indeed dissatisfied. STUDY DESIGN: We analyzed responses to a survey mailed to all surgeons who were certified by the American Board of Surgery in 1988, 1992, 1996, 2000, and 2004. We performed multivariate analyses to study career dissatisfaction and inability to achieve work-life balance, while adjusting for practice characteristics, demographics, and satisfaction with reimbursement. RESULTS: A total of 895 (25.5%) surgeons responded: mean age was 46 years; 80% were men; 88% were married; 86% had children; 45% were general surgeons; 72% were in urban practice; and 83% were in nonuniversity practice. Surgeons worked 64 hours per week; ideally, they would prefer to work 50 hours per week (median). Fifteen percent were dissatisfied with their careers. On multivariate analysis, significant (p < 0.05) risk factors were nonuniversity practice (odds ratio [OR] 3.3) and dissatisfaction with reimbursement (OR 5.9). Forty percent would not recommend a surgical career to their own children. On multivariate analysis, significant risk factors were nonuniversity practice (OR 2.5) and dissatisfaction with reimbursement (OR 3.4). In all, 33.5% did not achieve work-life balance. On multivariate analysis, dissatisfaction with reimbursement (OR 3.0) was a significant risk factor. Respondents' lives could be improved by "limiting emergency call" (77%), "diminishing litigation" (92%), and "improving reimbursement" (94%). CONCLUSIONS: Most surgeons are satisfied with their careers. Areas in need of improvement, particularly for nonuniversity surgeons, include reimbursement, work hours, and litigation. Strong local and national advocacy may not only improve career satisfaction, but could also render the profession more attractive for those contemplating a surgical career.

Health care system and socioeconomic factors associated with variance in use of sentinel lymph node biopsy for melanoma in the United States.

PURPOSE: Guidelines recommend sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) for patients with clinical stage IB/II melanomas, but not clinical stage IA melanoma. This study examines factors associated with SLNB use for clinically node-negative melanoma. METHODS: Patients diagnosed with clinically node-negative invasive melanoma in 2004 and 2005 were identified from the National Cancer Data Base. Regression models were developed to assess the association of clinicopathologic (sex, age, race/ethnicity, comorbidities, T stage), socioeconomic (insurance status, educational level, income), and hospital (hospital type, geographic area) factors with SLNB use. RESULTS: A total of 16,598 patients were identified: 8,073 patients with clinical stage IA and 8,525 patients with clinical stage IB/II melanoma. For clinical stage IB/II melanoma, SLNB use was reported in 48.7% of patients. Patients with clinical stage IB/II melanoma were less likely to undergo SLNB if they were older than 75 years; had T1b tumors, no tumor ulceration, or head/neck or truncal lesions; were covered by Medicaid or Medicare; or lived in the Northeast, South, or West census regions. SLNB use was reported in 13.3% of patients with clinical stage IA melanoma and was more likely in patients who were younger than 56 years or lived in the Mountain or Pacific census regions. Patients treated at National Comprehensive Cancer Network-or National Cancer Institute-designated hospitals were most likely to undergo SLNB in adherence with national consensus guidelines. CONCLUSION: SLNB use was associated with clinicopathologic factors but also with health system factors, including type of insurance, geographic area, and hospital type. These findings have implications for provider education and health policy.

Cutaneous melanoma in Asian-Americans.

BACKGROUND: There is little information available on melanoma in non-white populations. Our objective was to characterize melanoma in Asian-Americans (AsA) and compare patient demographics and tumor characteristics with the non-Hispanic White (NHW) population. METHODS: 483,050 cutaneous melanoma patients diagnosed between 1986 and 2005 were identified using the National Cancer Data Base (NCDB); 1,237 were AsA, and 409,564 were NHW. Age, gender, site, histologic type, tumor thickness, AJCC stage, and survival were compared. RESULTS: AsA were more likely to be diagnosed with acral lentiginous tumors (6.7%) than NHW (0.8%, P < 0.001). A greater proportion of AsA were diagnosed with T4 tumors (15.6%) than NHW (8.5%, P < 0.001). AsA presented with fewer early stage I-II tumors and more late stage III-IV tumors than NHW (P < 0.001). Survival was similar for AsA and NHW. CONCLUSIONS: This is the largest study to date on melanoma in AsA. Compared to NHW, AsA are more likely to have acral lentinginous tumors, thick tumors, and higher stage. Despite this, their survival is similar to the NHW population.