A multidisciplinary team and patient perspective on omission of surgery after neoadjuvant systemic therapy for early breast cancer: A European Society of Surgical Oncology (ESSO) Research Academy survey.

BACKGROUND: Surgical de-escalation aims to reduce morbidity without compromising oncological outcomes. Trials to de-escalate breast cancer (BC) surgery among exceptional responders after neoadjuvant systemic therapy (NST) are ongoing. Combined patient and clinician insights on this strategy are unknown. METHODS: The European Society of Surgical Oncology Young Surgeons Alumni Club (EYSAC) performed an online survey to evaluate the perspective of multidisciplinary teams (MDTs) on omission of surgery ("no surgery") following complete response to NST for early BC. The aim was to identify MDT considerations and perceived barriers to omission of BC surgery. Patient insights were obtained through a focused group discussion (FGD) with four members of the patient advocacy group, Guiding Researchers and Advocates to Scientific Partnerships (GRASP). RESULTS: The MDT survey had 248 responses, with 229 included for analysis. Criteria for a "no surgery" approach included: patient's tumor and nodal status before (39.7 %) and after (45.9 %) NST and comorbidities (44.3 %). The majority chose standard surgery for hypothetical cases with a complete response to NST. Barriers for implementation were lack of definitive trials (55.9 %), "no surgery" not being discussed in MDTs (28.8 %) and lack of essential diagnostic or therapeutic options (24 %). Patients expressed communication gaps about BC surgery, lack of trust regarding accuracy of imaging, fear of regret and psychosocial burden of choosing less extensive surgery. CONCLUSIONS: Before accepting "no surgery" after complete response to NST, MDTs and patients need level 1 evidence from clinical trials, access to standard diagnostic modalities and treatments. Patient's fear of regretting less surgery need to be acknowledged and addressed.

A new era in surgical oncology: preliminary insights into the hinotori™ surgical robot system's role in rectal surgery using the double bipolar method.

BACKGROUND: The da Vinci™ Surgical System, recognized as the leading surgical robotic platform globally, now faces competition from a growing number of new robotic surgical systems. With the expiration of key patents, innovative entrants have emerged, each offering unique features to address limitations and challenges in minimally invasive surgery. The hinotori™ Surgical Robot System (hinotori), developed in Japan and approved for clinical use in November 2022, represents one such entrant. This study demonstrates initial insights into the application of the hinotori in robot-assisted surgeries for patients with rectal neoplasms. METHODS: The present study, conducted at a single institution, retrospectively reviewed 28 patients with rectal neoplasms treated with the hinotori from November 2022 to March 2024. The surgical technique involved placing five ports, including one for an assistant, and performing either total or tumor-specific mesorectal excision using the double bipolar method (DBM). The DBM uses two bipolar instruments depending on the situation, typically Maryland bipolar forceps on the right and Fenestrated bipolar forceps on the left, to allow precise dissection, hemostasis, and lymph node dissection. RESULTS: The study group comprised 28 patients, half of whom were male. The median age was 62 years and the body mass index stood at 22.1 kg/m2. Distribution of clinical stages included eight at stage I, five at stage II, twelve at stage III, and three at stage IV. The majority, 26 patients (92.9%), underwent anterior resection using a double stapling technique. There were no intraoperative complications or conversions to other surgical approaches. The median operative time and cockpit time were 257 and 148 min, respectively. Blood loss was 15 mL. Postoperative complications were infrequent, with only one patient experiencing transient ileus. A median of 18 lymph nodes was retrieved, and no positive surgical margins were identified. CONCLUSIONS: The introduction of the hinotori for rectal neoplasms appears to be safe and feasible, particularly when performed by experienced robotic surgeons. The double bipolar method enabled precise dissection and hemostasis, contributing to minimal blood loss and effective lymph node dissection.

Surgical Perspectives on the Updated ASTRO Guideline on Partial Breast Irradiation for Breast Cancer.

This is an executive summary of the most recent American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO) guidelines on use of partial breast irradiation in early-stage breast cancer.In the conscientious pursuit of "right-sizing" the management of patients with early-stage breast cancer, there has been an emphasis on judicious de-escalation of therapy. A component of this paradigm shift is partial breast irradiation (PBI), an approach characterized by targeted radiation therapy (RT) to lumpectomy cavity margins rather than to the whole breast (i.e., whole breast irradiation [WBI]) after breast conservation surgery (BCS). The American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO) recently completed a revision of its evidence-based guidelines for the application of PBI.1To accomplish this, recent PBI data were reviewed by panel members, including representatives of the American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO), in collaboration with the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO), and the Society of Surgical Oncology (SSO), which provided representatives and peer reviewers. The guideline was approved by the ASTRO Board of Directors and endorsed by the Canadian Association of Radiation Oncology, European Society for Radiotherapy and Oncology, Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Radiologists, and the Society of Surgical Oncology.The recommendations focused on indications for PBI as an alternative to WBI and technical considerations specific to PBI. This editorial provides a summary and comments on the updated ASTRO PBI guidelines, offering insights into the implications of these findings for clinical practice and multidisciplinary decision-making while underscoring technical considerations for optimal incorporation of PBI into patient care.

Evaluation of the proportional hazards assumption and covariate adjustment methods in comparative surgical observational studies with time-to-event endpoints.

INTRODUCTION: Comparative studies on surgical treatments with time-to-event endpoints have provided substantial evidence for clinical practice, but the accurate use of survival data analysis and the control of confounding bias remain big challenges. METHODS: This was a survey of surgical studies with survival outcomes published in four general medical journals and five general surgical journals in 2021. The two most concerned statistical issues were evaluated, including confounding control by propensity score analysis (PSA) or multivariable analysis and testing of proportional hazards (PH) assumption in Cox model. RESULTS: A total of 74 studies were included, comprising 63 observational studies and 11 randomized controlled trials. Among the observational studies, the proportion of studies utilizing PSA in surgical oncology and non-oncology studies was similar (40.9 % versus 36.8 %, P = 0.762). However, the former reported a significantly lower proportion of PH assumption assessments compared to the latter (13.6 % versus 42.1 %, P = 0.020). Twenty-five observational studies (25/63) used PSA methods, but two-thirds of them (17/25) showed unclear balance of baseline data after PSA. And the proportion of PH assumption testing after PSA was slightly lower than that before PSA, but the difference was not statistically significant (24.0 % versus 28.0 %, P = 0.317). Comprehensive suggestions were given on confounding control in survival analysis and alternative resolutions for non-compliance with PH assumption. CONCLUSION: This study highlights suboptimal reporting of PH assumption evaluation in observational surgical studies both before and after PSA. Efforts and consensus are needed with respect to the underlying assumptions of statistical methods.

Factors Influencing Implementation of the Commission on Cancer's Breast Synoptic Operative Report (Alliance A20_Pilot9).

BACKGROUND: The technical aspects of cancer surgery have a significant impact on patient outcomes. To monitor surgical quality, in 2020, the Commission on Cancer (CoC) revised its accreditation standards for cancer surgery and introduced the synoptic operative reports (SORs). The standardization of SORs holds promise, but successful implementation requires strategies to address key implementation barriers. This study aimed to identify the barriers and facilitators to implementing breast SOR within diverse CoC-accredited programs. METHODS: In-depth semi-structured interviews were conducted with 31 health care professionals across diverse CoC-accredited sites. The study used two comprehensive implementation frameworks to guide data collection and analysis. RESULTS: Successful SOR implementation was impeded by disrupted workflows, surgeon resistance to change, low prioritization of resources, and poor flow of information despite CoC's positive reputation. Participants often lacked understanding of the requirements and timeline for breast SOR and were heavily influenced by prior experiences with templates and SOR champion relationships. The perceived lack of monetary benefits (to obtaining CoC accreditation) together with the significant information technology (IT) resource requirements tempered some of the enthusiasm. Additionally, resource constraints and the redirection of personnel during the COVID-19 pandemic were noted as hurdles. CONCLUSIONS: Surgeon behavior and workflow change, IT and personnel resources, and communication and networking strategies influenced SOR implementation. During early implementation and the implementation planning phase, the primary focus was on achieving buy-in and initiating successful roll-out rather than effective use or sustainment. These findings have implications for enhancing standardization of surgical cancer care and guidance of future strategies to optimize implementation of CoC accreditation standards.

Series on the Lancet Oncology Commission on Global Cancer Surgery: Introduction-Intent and Content.

BACKGROUND: Surgery plays a key role in the multi-disciplinary cancer care pathway. Nearly 80% of patients with solid tumors will require surgical intervention during the course of their disease. Unfortunately, the vast majority of these patients do not have access to safe, timely, high-quality, and affordable cancer surgical care. The first Lancet Oncology Commission on Global Cancer Surgery shone a light on this grave situation and outlined some strategies to address them. The second Lancet Oncology Commission on Global Cancer Surgery (TLO- II) was conceived to continue the work of its predecessor by developing a roadmap of practical solutions to propel improvements in cancer surgical care globally. METHODS: The Commission was developed by involving approximately 50 cancer care leaders and experts from different parts of the world to ensure diversity of input and global applicability. RESULTS: The Commission identified nine solutional domains that are considered essential to deliver safe, timely, high-quality, and affordable cancer surgical care. These nine domains were further refined to develop solutions specific to each of the six World Health Organization regions. Based on the above solutions, we developed eight action items that are intended to propel improvements in cancer surgical care on the global stage. CONCLUSIONS: The second Lancet Oncology Commission on Global Cancer Surgery builds on the first Commission by developing a pragmatic roadmap of practical solutions that we hope will ensure access to safe, timely, high-quality, and affordable cancer surgical care for everyone regardless of their socioeconomic status or geographic location.

Reliability of artificial intelligence chatbot responses to frequently asked questions in breast surgical oncology.

INTRODUCTION: Artificial intelligence (AI)-driven chatbots, capable of simulating human-like conversations, are becoming more prevalent in healthcare. While this technology offers potential benefits in patient engagement and information accessibility, it raises concerns about potential misuse, misinformation, inaccuracies, and ethical challenges. METHODS: This study evaluated a publicly available AI chatbot, ChatGPT, in its responses to nine questions related to breast cancer surgery selected from the American Society of Breast Surgeons' frequently asked questions (FAQ) patient education website. Four breast surgical oncologists assessed the responses for accuracy and reliability using a five-point Likert scale and the Patient Education Materials Assessment (PEMAT) Tool. RESULTS: The average reliability score for ChatGPT in answering breast cancer surgery questions was 3.98 out of 5.00. Surgeons unanimously found the responses understandable and actionable per the PEMAT criteria. The consensus found ChatGPT's overall performance was appropriate, with minor or no inaccuracies. CONCLUSION: ChatGPT demonstrates good reliability in responding to breast cancer surgery queries, with minor, nonharmful inaccuracies. Its answers are accurate, clear, and easy to comprehend. Notably, ChatGPT acknowledged its informational role and did not attempt to replace medical advice or discourage users from seeking input from a healthcare professional.

Canadian French Translation and Validation of the Neck Dissection Impairment Index: A Quality of Life Measure for the Surgical Oncology Population.

BACKGROUND: Neck dissections (ND) are a routine procedure in head and neck oncology. Given the postoperative functional impact that some patients experience, it is imperative to identify and track quality of life (QoL) symptomatology to tailor each patient's therapeutic needs. To date, there is no validated French-Canadian questionnaire for this patient-population. We therefore sought to translate and validate the Neck Dissection Impairment Index (NDII) in Canadian French. METHODS: A 3-phased approach was used. Phase 1: The NDII was translated from English to Canadian French using a "forward and backward" translational technique following international guidelines. Phase 2: A cognitive debriefing session was held with 10 Canadian French-speaking otolaryngology patients to evaluate understandability and acceptability. Phase 3: The final version was administered prospectively to 30 patients with prior history of ND and 30 control patients. These patients were asked to complete the questionnaire 2 weeks after their first response. Test-retest reliability was calculated with Spearman's correlation. Internal consistency was elicited using Cronbach's alpha. RESULTS: NDII was successfully translated and validated to Canadian French. Cronbach's alpha revealed high internal consistency (0.92, lower 95% confidence limit 0.89). The correlation for test-retest validity were strong or very strong (0.61-0.91). CONCLUSION: NDII is an internationally recognized QoL tool for the identification of ND-related impairments. This validated Canadian French version will allow clinicians to adequately assess the surgery-related QoL effect of neck surgery in the French-speaking population, while allowing French institutions to conduct and/or participate in multisite clinical trials requiring the NDII as an outcome measure.

Quality of emergency oncological surgery: time for advanced oncological life support.

OBJECTIVE: In the emergency care of cancer patients, in addition to cancer-related factors, two aspects influence the outcome: (1) where the patient is treated and (2) who will perform the surgery. In Brazil, a significant proportion of patients with surgical oncological emergencies will be operated on in general hospitals by surgeons without training in oncological surgery. OBJECTIVE: The objective was to discuss quality indicators and propose the creation of an urgent oncological surgery advanced life support course. METHODS: Review of articles on the topic. RESULTS: Generally, nonelective resections are associated with higher rates of morbidity and mortality, as well as lower rates of cancer-specific survival. In comparison to elective procedures, the reduced number of harvested lymph nodes and the higher rate of positive margins suggest a compromised degree of radicality in the emergency scenario. CONCLUSION: Among modifiable factors is the training of the emergency surgeon. Enhancing the practice of oncological surgery in emergency settings constitutes a formidable undertaking that entails collaboration across various medical specialties and warrants endorsement and support from medical societies and educational institutions. It is time to establish a national registry encompassing oncological emergencies, develop quality indicators tailored to the national context, and foster the establishment of specialized training programs aimed at enhancing the proficiency of physicians serving in emergency services catering to cancer patients.

Practice Patterns and Outcomes Among Surgical Oncology Fellowship Graduates Performing Complex Cancer Surgery in the United States Across Different Career Stages.

BACKGROUND: Practice patterns and potential quality differences among surgical oncology fellowship graduates relative to years of independent practice have not been defined. METHODS: Medicare claims were used to identify patients who underwent esophagectomy, pancreatectomy, hepatectomy, or rectal resection for cancer between 2016 and 2021. Surgical oncology fellowship graduates were identified, and the association between years of independent practice, serious complications, and 90-day mortality was examined. RESULTS: Overall, 11,746 cancer operations (pancreatectomy [61.2%], hepatectomy [19.5%], rectal resection [13.7%], esophagectomy [5.6%]) were performed by 676 surgical oncology fellowship graduates (females: 17.7%). The operations were performed for 4147 patients (35.3%) by early-career surgeons (1-7 years), for 4104 patients (34.9%) by mid-career surgeons (8-14 years), and for 3495 patients (29.8%) by late-career surgeons (>15 years). The patients who had surgery by early-career surgeons were treated more frequently at a Midwestern (24.9% vs. 14.2%) than at a Northeastern institution (20.6% vs. 26.9%) compared with individuals treated by late-career surgeons (p < 0.05). Surgical oncologists had comparable risk-adjusted serious complications and 90-day mortality rates irrespective of career stage (early career [13.0% and 7.2%], mid-career [12.6% and 6.3%], late career [12.8% and 6.5%], respectively; all p > 0.05). Surgeon case-specific volume independently predicted serious complications across all career stages (high vs. low volume: early career [odds ratio {OR}, 0.80; 95% confidence interval {CI}, 0.65-0.98]; mid-career [OR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.66-0.99]; late career [OR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.62-0.97]). CONCLUSION: Among surgical oncology fellowship graduates performing complex cancer surgery, rates of serious complications and 90-day mortality were comparable between the early-career and mid/late-career stages. Individual surgeon case-specific volume was strongly associated with postoperative outcomes irrespective of years of independent practice or career stage.

Current trends in the management of Gastro-oEsophageal cancers: Updates to the ESSO core curriculum (ESSO-ETC-UGI-WG initiative).

Gastro-oEsophageal Cancers (GECs) are severe diseases whose management is rapidly evolving. The European Society of Surgical Oncology (ESSO) is committed to the generation and spread of knowledge, and promotes the multidisciplinary management of cancer patients through its core curriculum. The present work discusses the approach to GECs, including the management of oligometastatic oesophagogastric cancers (OMEC), the diagnosis and management of peritoneal metastases from gastric cancer (GC), the management of Siewert Type II tumors, the importance of mesogastric excision, the role of robotic surgery, textbook outcomes, organ preserving options, the use of molecular markers and immune check-point inhibitors in the management of patients with GECs, as well as the improvement of current clinical practice guidelines for the management of patients with GECs. The aim of the present review is to provide a concise overview of the state-of-the-art on the management of patients with GECs and, at the same time, to share the latest advancements in the field and to foster the debate between surgical oncologists treating GECs worldwide. We are sure that our work will, at the same time, give an update to the advanced surgical oncologists and help the training surgical oncologists to settle down the foundations for their future practice.

The Clinic Visit.

In this narrative medicine essay, a surgical oncologist reflects on his 30-year practice and the care he receives for his leukemia, understanding how vital the relationships and discourse with the care team are for his recovery.

A cross-sectional survey of patient attitudes towards telemedicine in head and neck surgical oncology.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate patient attitudes towards desire for and barriers to utilizing telemedicine visits for head and neck oncology care. METHODS: This is a retrospective analysis of data from cross-sectional survey responses collected via prospectively administered questionnaire to 616 adult patients during their clinical visit to a tertiary care head and neck surgical oncology clinic. Responses to questions investigating interest in telemedicine and potential barriers were collated with patient demographics, measures of rurality, and insurance status. Interest in telemedicine appointments was the assessed primary outcome. RESULTS: Of 616 survey respondents, 315 (51 %) indicated interest in telemedicine visits. Limitations in access to technology (17.5 %) and lack of reliable internet connection (13.14 %) were identified as key barriers to telemedicine use. Lack of interest in telemedicine was associated with older age (OR 0.97 [95%CI 0.96-0.98]), governmental insurance (0.43 [0.31-0.60]) and, retired work status (0.48 [0.33-0.69]). Women (1.43 [1.04-1.97]) and patients who reported access to compatible electronic devices (41.05 [14.88-113.20]) and reliable internet connection (20.94 [8.34-52.60]) were more likely to be interested in telemedicine appointments. Respondents also indicated preference for a "hands on" examination over telemedicine appointments. CONCLUSION: Nearly 1 in 2 patients evaluated in a tertiary care head and neck surgical oncology clinic expressed reticence regarding telemedicine for clinical visits. Limited access to technology platforms and unreliable internet remain key concerns for these patients. Understanding the needs and attitudes of specific patient populations may be important for organizations pivoting to telemedicine platforms to ensure equity in healthcare access. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Retrospective analysis of prospectively collected cross-sectional survey.