A phase II trial of gemcitabine and erlotinib followed by ChemoProton therapy plus capecitabine and oxaliplatin for locally advanced pancreatic cancer.

Background: Epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) is overexpressed in pancreatic cancer. EGFR expression plays a potentially important role in modulation of tumor sensitivity to either chemotherapy or radiotherapy. Erlotinib is a receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitor with specificity for EGFR/HER1. A phase II trial was conducted to explore the efficacy of a regimen utilizing erlotinib and proton therapy. Methods: Patients with unresectable or borderline resectable non-metastatic adenocarcinoma of the pancreas were included. Patients received 8-week systemic treatment with gemcitabine 1,000 mg/m2 and erlotinib 100 mg (GE). If there was no evidence of metastatic disease after GE, then patients preceded with proton therapy to 50.4 Gy in 28 fractions with concurrent capecitabine 825 mg/m2 (CPT). This was followed with oxaliplatin 130 mg/m2 and capecitabine 1,000 mg/m2 (CapOx) for 4 cycles. The primary study objective was 1-year overall survival (OS). The benchmark was 43% 1-year survival as demonstrated in RTOG/NRG 98-12. The Kaplan-Meier method was used to estimate the one-year OS and the median OS and progression-free survival (PFS). Results: The study enrolled 9 patients ages 47-81 years old (median 62) between January 2013 and March 2016, when the trial was closed due to low patient accrual. The 1-year OS rate was 55.6% (95% CI: 31% to 99%). The median OS was 14.1 months (95% CI: 11.4-NE) and the median PFS was 10.8 months (95% CI: 7.44-NE). A majority of patients completed CPT and GE, but only 33.3% completed the four cycles of CapOx. A third of patients experienced grade 3 toxicities, which were all hepatic along with one patient who also had grade 3 diarrhea. There were no grade 4 or 5 toxicities. Four patients were enrolled with borderline resectable disease, three of which were eligible for pancreaticoduodenectomy after GE and CPT treatment. One of two patients who underwent resection had a negative margin. Conclusions: This regimen for locally advanced pancreatic cancer (LAPC) exceeded the pre-specified benchmark and was safe and well tolerated. Additional investigations utilizing more current systemic treatment regimens with proton therapy are warranted. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier (NCTNCT01683422).

The Impact of Primary Tumor Surgery on Survival in HER2 Positive Stage IV Breast Cancer Patients in the Current Era of Targeted Therapy.

OBJECTIVE: We sought to examine the impact of primary tumor resection on survival in HER2+ stage IV breast cancer patients in the era of HER2 targeted therapy. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of women with HER2+ stage IV breast cancer in the National Cancer Database from 2010 to 2012 comparing those who did and did not undergo definitive breast surgery. RESULTS: Of 3231 patients, treatment included primary site surgery in 35.0%; chemo/targeted therapy in 89.4%; endocrine therapy in 37.7%; and radiation in 31.8%. Surgery was associated with Medicare/other government (OR 1.36, 95% CI 1.03-1.81) or private insurance (OR 1.93, 95% CI 1.53-2.42) versus none/Medicaid, radiation (OR 2.10, 95% CI 1.76-2.51), chemo/targeted therapy (OR 1.99, 95% CI 1.47-2.70), and endocrine therapy (OR 1.73, 95% CI 1.40-2.14). Non-Hispanic Black versus White patients (OR 0.68, 95% CI 0.53-0.87) were less likely to have surgery. Overall mortality was associated with insurance (Medicare/other government versus none/Medicaid, HR 0.36, p < 0.0001), receipt of chemo/targeted therapy (HR 0.76, p = 0.008), endocrine therapy (HR 0.70, p = 0.0006), and radiation therapy (HR 1.33, p = 0.0009), NH Black versus White race/ethnicity (HR 1.39, p = 0.002), visceral versus bone-only metastases (HR 1.44, p = 0.0003), and lowest versus highest income quartile (HR 1.36, p = 0.01). Propensity score analysis showed surgery was associated with improved survival versus no surgery (HR 0.56, 95% CI 0.40-0.77). CONCLUSIONS: Surgery of the primary site for metastatic HER2+ breast cancer is associated with improved overall survival in selected patients.

Gastric Cancer Peritoneal Carcinomatosis Risk Score.

BACKGROUND: Gastric cancer (GC) peritoneal carcinomatosis (PC) is associated with a poor prognosis. Although grade, histology, and stage are associated with PC, the cumulative risk of PC when multiple risk factors are present is unknown. This study aimed to develop a cumulative GCPC risk score based on individual demographic/tumor characteristics. METHODS: Patient-level data (2004-2014) from the California Cancer Registry were reviewed by creating a keyword search algorithm to identify patients with gastric PC. Multivariable logistic regression was used to assess demographic/tumor characteristics associated with PC in a randomly selected testing cohort. Scores were assigned to risk factors based on beta coefficients from the logistic regression result, and these scores were applied to the remainder of the subjects (validation cohort). The summed scores of each risk factor formed the total risk score. These were grouped, showing the percentages of patients with PC. RESULTS: The study identified 4285 patients with gastric adenocarcinoma (2757 males, 64.3%). The median age of the patients was 67 years (interquartile range [IQR], 20 years). Most of the patients were non-Hispanic white (n = 1748, 40.8%), with proximal (n = 1675, 39.1%) and poorly differentiated (n = 2908, 67.9%) tumors. The characteristics most highly associated with PC were T4 (odds ratio [OR], 3.12; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.19-4.44), overlapping location (OR 2.27; 95% CI 1.52-3.39), age of 20-40 years (OR 3.42; 95% CI 2.24-5.21), and Hispanic ethnicity (OR 1.86; 95% CI 1.36-2.54). The demographic/tumor characteristics used in the risk score included age, race/ethnicity, T stage, histology, tumor grade, and location. Increasing GCPC score was associated with increasing percentage of patients with PC. CONCLUSION: Based on demographic/tumor characteristics in GC, it is possible to distinguish groups with varying odds for PC. Understanding the risk for PC based on the cumulative effect of high-risk features can help clinicians to customize surveillance strategies and can aid in early identification of PC.

Improved Survival with Immunotherapy but Lack of Synergistic Effect with Radiation for Stage IV Melanoma of the Head and Neck.

Prospective randomized studies have demonstrated a survival benefit of immunotherapy in stage IV cutaneous melanoma. Some retrospective studies have hypothesized a synergistic effect of radiation and immunotherapy. Our objective was to identify whether there is a survival benefit for patients treated with radiation and immunotherapy in stage IV cutaneous melanoma of the head and neck (CMHN). The National Cancer Database was used to identify patients with stage IV CMHN between 2012 and 2014. These patients were stratified based on receipt of radiation and immunotherapy. Adjusted Cox regression was used to analyze overall survival. A total of 542 patients were identified with stage IV CMHN, of whom 153 (28%) patients received immunotherapy. Receipt of immunotherapy (hazard ratio [HR] 0.69, P = 0.02) and negative LNs (HR 0.50, P = 0.002) were independently associated with improved survival, whereas radiation conferred no survival benefit (HR 1.17, P = 0.26). Patients who received immunotherapy without radiation were associated with significantly improved survival compared with those who received immunotherapy with radiation (P < 0.0001). However, of patients who received radiation, the addition of immunotherapy did not seem to improve survival (P = 0.979). In stage IV CMHN, immunotherapy confers a 32 per cent survival benefit. The use of immunotherapy in patients who require radiation, however, is not associated with improved survival.

From Evidence to Practice: Are Low-Risk Breast Cancer Patients still Enduring Unnecessary Costs of Radiation?

Radiation is routinely recommended after conservative surgery for breast cancer, despite long-standing Level I evidence showing no survival benefit for elderly patients with favorable disease using endocrine therapy. We sought to evaluate radiation use and costs in patients eligible for omission of radiation. A retrospective single-institution review from 2005 to 2017 was performed of women aged ≥70 years, with cT1N0M0, who were ER/PR positive and HER-2 negative, and receiving breast-conserving surgery. Patient, tumor, and treatment characteristics were compared by use of radiation. Cost estimates used Medicare's 2019 fee schedule. Of 84 patients meeting the study criteria, 72.6 per cent received radiation and 56 per cent received endocrine therapy, with four recurrences (4.9% radiated and 4.4% not radiated, P = 0.9). Early and late grade I radiation toxicities occurred in 67.2 per cent and 26.2 per cent of radiated patients, respectively. Younger age (P = 0.01), receipt of endocrine therapy (P < 0.0001), and axillary surgery (P < 0.0001) were significantly associated with radiation use. There were no significant differences in radiation use based on race/ethnicity, language, comorbidities, BMI, or pathologic tumor size. Estimated total radiation cost was $646,426. Radiation remains overused and endocrine therapy, underused in breast cancer patients eligible to avoid radiation. As gatekeepers for radiation oncology referrals, surgeons can diminish both physical and financial costs of radiation in eligible patients.

Improved long-term patient-reported health and well-being outcomes of early-stage breast cancer treated with partial breast proton therapy.

BACKGROUND: Because early-stage breast cancer can be treated successfully by a variety of breast-conservation approaches, long-term quality of life (QoL) is an important consideration in assessing treatment outcomes for these patients. This study compares patient-reported QoL outcomes among women with stage 0-2 disease treated via lumpectomy followed by whole breast irradiation (WBI) or partial breast proton irradiation (PBPT). METHODS: In this cross-sectional study, 129 participants evaluated QoL several years post-treatment by responding to subjective instruments, including established scalar questionnaires and self-report measures. Responses were averaged between the two groups. RESULTS: At 6.5 years (median) postdiagnosis, participants' demographic, and clinical characteristics were similar. Patient-reported outcomes were reported as mean scale scores for the two groups, all displaying significant differences favoring PBPT, including: cosmetic breast cancer treatment outcome scale (BCTOS) (PBPT mean 1.45, WBI mean 1.88, P < 0.001); breast pain (PBPT mean 1.30, WBI mean 1.67, P < 0.05); breast texture (BPT mean 1.44, WBI mean 1.91, P < 0.001); clothing fit (PBPT mean 1.06, WBI 1.46, P < 0.001); fatigue (PBPT mean 2.24, WBI mean 3.77, P < 0.002); impact of daily life fatigue on personal relations (OBPT mean 0.83, WBI mean 2.15, P < 0.001); and self-consciousness (appearance dissatisfaction) (PBPT mean 1.38, WBI mean 1.77, P < 0.004). CONCLUSION: Patients' responses suggest that PBPT is associated with improved overall QoL compared to standard whole breast treatment. These self-perceptions are reported by patients who are 5-10 years post-treatment, and that PBPT may enhance QoL in a multitude of interrelated ways.

Sexual and urinary outcomes in robotic rectal surgery: review of the literature and technical considerations.

Several studies have reported high rates of urogenital dysfunction after open and laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer. Robotic surgery has several features that could facilitate identification and preservation of autonomic nerves. This manuscript aims to summarize the literature regarding urogenital function after robotic rectal cancer surgery and focus on technical aspects of nerve-sparing total mesorectal excision. Comprehensive searches were conducted through online databases. Selection criteria included: original articles assessing urinary and sexual function after robotic surgery of males and/or females with standardized questionnaires. A total of 16 articles were included in the review. Seven of the nine cohort studies evaluating male sexual function showed earlier recovery or better outcomes in patients operated with robotic techniques. Two studies did not find any statistically significant difference. Three out of four case series found no difference in sexual function scores measured preoperatively and after 1 year. Female sexual function was assessed in seven studies: two case series show no deterioration of at 1 year. Three comparative studies showed no difference between robotic and laparoscopic groups. Two randomized control trials showed different results in terms of male and female sexual functions with better preservation at 1 year in the robotic group in one and no difference in another. Urinary functions assessed in males and/or females in the 16 studies showed no statistically significant differences at long-term follow-up. At present, there is no evidence of superiority of robotic surgery for performing nerve-sparing rectal cancer surgery.

Role of lymph node ratio in selection of adjuvant treatment (chemotherapy vs. chemoradiation) in patients with resected gastric cancer.

BACKGROUND: Recent randomized controlled trials have failed to show a survival difference between adjuvant chemotherapy (CT) and adjuvant chemoradiotherapy (CRT) in patients with resected gastric cancer (GC). However, a subset of patients with lymph node (LN) positive disease may still benefit from CRT. Additional evidence is needed to help guide physicians in identifying patients in whom CRT should be considered. Our objective was then to compare survival outcomes based on lymph node ratio (LNR) (ratio of metastatic to harvested LNs) for patients with gastric and gastroesophageal junction (GEJ) adenocarcinoma treated with surgery and either CT or CRT. METHODS: This retrospective population-based study used California Cancer Registry (CCR) data from 2004 to 2013. It included 1,493 patients diagnosed with stage IB-III gastric/GEJ adenocarcinoma and treated with CT or CRT following total or partial gastrectomy. Overall survival (OS) was the primary outcome and GC-specific survival was secondary. Mortality hazards ratios (HR) for these outcomes were computed using propensity score weighted Cox regression models, stratified by LNR strata categories as 0%, 1-9%, 10-25% and >25%. RESULTS: Out of 1,493 patients that met inclusion criteria, 462 were treated with CT while 1,031 received CRT. Median follow-up for all subjects was 76 months and median survival was 54 months for CRT and 35 for the CT cohort, P<0.001. Compared to CT, CRT was associated with improved survival among patients with LNR of 10-25% [HR =0.62 (95% CI, 0.46-0.83)] and >25% [HR =0.67 (95% CI, 0.56-0.80)]. Similar findings were observed for GC-specific survival and for analyses limited to patients that had at least 15 LNs evaluated. CONCLUSIONS: LNR appears to be a simple and readily available measure that could be used in treatment planning for resected GC. CRT offers significant survival advantage over CT among patients with high LN disease burden (LNR of ≥10%).

High-Risk Stage II Colon Cancer: Not All Risks Are Created Equal.

INTRODUCTION: Adjuvant chemotherapy is recommended in patients with stage II colon cancer with high-risk features (HRF). However, there is no quantification of the amount of risk conferred by each HRF or the overall survival (OS) benefit gained by chemotherapy based on the risk factor. OBJECTIVE: To assess survival benefits associated with adjuvant chemotherapy among stage II colon cancer patients having one or more HRF [T4 tumors, less than 12 lymph nodes examined (< 12LN), positive margins, high-grade tumor, perineural invasion (PNI), and lymphovascular invasion (LVI)]. METHODS: Patients diagnosed with stage II colon cancer between 2010 and 2013 were identified from California Cancer Registry. Propensity score weighted all-cause mortality hazard ratios (HR) were calculated for combinations of HRF. RESULTS: A total of 5160 stage II colon cancer patients were identified, of which 2398 had at least one HRF and 510 of 2398 (21%) received adjuvant chemotherapy. Compared with patients with a single HRF, presence of any 2 or ≥ 3 HRF showed increasingly poorer survival [HR 1.42, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.16-1.73 and HR 2.50, 95% CI 1.96-3.20, respectively]. Chemotherapy was associated with improved overall survival only among patients with T4 as the single HRF (HR 0.51, 95% CI 0.34-0.78) or combinations involving T4 as T4/< 12 LN (HR 0.31, 95% CI 0.11-0.90), T4/high grade (HR 0.26, 95% CI 0.11-0.61), and T4/LVI (HR 0.16, 95% CI 0.04-0.61). CONCLUSIONS: Not all high-risk features have similar adverse effects on OS. T4 tumors and their combination with other HRF achieve the most survival benefit with adjuvant therapy. Type and number of high-risk features should be taken into consideration when recommending adjuvant chemotherapy in stage II colon cancer.

Comparison of perioperative chemotherapy with adjuvant chemoradiotherapy for resectable gastric cancer: findings from a population-based study.

BACKGROUND: Both perioperative chemotherapy (PC) and adjuvant chemoradiotherapy (CRT) improve survival in resectable gastric cancer; however, these treatments have never been formally compared. Our objective was to evaluate treatment trends and compare survival outcomes for gastric cancer patients treated with surgery and either PC or CRT. METHODS: We performed a retrospective population-based cohort study between 2007 through 2013 using California Cancer Registry data. Patients diagnosed with stage IB-III gastric adenocarcinoma and treated with total or partial gastrectomy were eligible for this study. Based on the type of treatment received, patients were grouped into surgery-only, PC, or CRT. Primary and secondary outcomes were overall survival (OS) and gastric cancer-specific survival (GCCS) respectively. Mortality hazards ratios (HRs) for each of these outcomes were computed using propensity score weighted and covariate-adjusted Cox regression models, stratified by clinical node status. RESULTS: Of 2,146 patients who underwent surgical resection, 1,067 had surgery-only, while 771 and 308 received PC or CRT, respectively. Median OS was 25, 33, and 52 months for surgery-only, PC, and CRT, respectively; P<0.001. Overall, patients treated with PC had significantly poorer survival compared to CRT (HR =1.45; 95% CI: 1.22-1.73). PC was also associated with higher mortality in patients with signet ring histology (HR =1.66; 95% CI: 1.21-2.28) and clinical node negative cancer (HR =1.85; 95% CI: 1.32-2.60). Survival was not different between PC vs. CRT in clinical node positive patients (HR =1.29; 95% CI: 0.84-2.08). Of note, the percentage of patients receiving PC increased from 17.5% in 2007-2008, to 41.5% in 2013-2014; P<0.001. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the rapid adoption of PC, overall, CRT is associated with better survival than PC. Specifically, clinical node negative and signet ring histology patients had better survival when treated with CRT compared to PC. Based on these findings, we recommend against indiscriminate adoption of PC and consideration for CRT over PC in clinical node negative patients.

Attending Surgeon Variation in Operative Case Length: An Opportunity for Quality Improvement.

Balancing resident education with operating room (OR) efficiency, while accommodating different styles of surgical educators and learners, is a challenging task. We sought to evaluate variability in operative time for breast surgery cases. Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education case logs of breast operations from 2011 to 2017 for current surgical residents at Loma Linda University were correlated with patient records. The main outcome measure was operative time. Breast cases were assessed as these operations are performed during all postgraduate years (PGY). Breast procedures were grouped according to similarity. Variables analyzed included attending surgeon, PGY level, procedure type, month of operation, and American Society of Anesthesiologists class. Of 606 breast cases reviewed, median overall operative time was 150 minutes (interquartile range 187-927). One-way analysis of covariance demonstrated statistically significant variation in operative time by attending surgeon controlling for covariates (PGY level, procedure, American Society of Anesthesiologists class, and month) (P = 0.04). With institutional OR costs of $30 per minute, the average difference between slowest and fastest surgeon was $2400 per case [(218-138) minutes × $30/min]. Minimizing variability for common procedures performed by surgical educators may enhance OR efficiency. However, the impact of case length on surgical resident training requires careful consideration.

Factors Associated With Underestimation of Invasive Cancer in Patients With Ductal Carcinoma In Situ: Precautions for Active Surveillance.

IMPORTANCE: Recent recognition of the overdiagnosis and overtreatment of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) detected by mammography has led to the development of clinical trials randomizing women with non-high-grade DCIS to active surveillance, defined as imaging surveillance with or without endocrine therapy, vs standard surgical care. OBJECTIVE: To determine the factors associated with underestimation of invasive cancer in patients with a clinical diagnosis of non-high-grade DCIS that would preclude active surveillance. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A retrospective cohort study was conducted using records from the National Cancer Database from January 1, 1998, to December 31, 2012, of female patients 40 to 99 years of age with a clinical diagnosis of non-high-grade DCIS who underwent definitive surgical treatment. Data analysis was conducted from November 1, 2015, to February 4, 2017. EXPOSURES: Patients with an upgraded diagnosis of invasive carcinoma vs those with a diagnosis of DCIS based on final surgical pathologic findings. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The proportions of cases with an upgraded diagnosis of invasive carcinoma from final surgical pathologic findings were compared by tumor, host, and system characteristics. RESULTS: Of 37 544 women (mean [SD] age, 59.3 [12.4] years) presenting with a clinical diagnosis of non-high-grade DCIS, 8320 (22.2%) had invasive carcinoma based on final pathologic findings. Invasive carcinomas were more likely to be smaller (>0.5 to ≤1.0 cm vs ≤0.5 cm: odds ratio [OR], 0.73; 95% CI, 0.67-0.79; >1.0 to ≤2.0 cm vs ≤0.5 cm: OR, 0.42; 95% CI, 0.39-0.46; >2.0 to ≤5.0 cm vs ≤0.5 cm: OR, 0.19; 95% CI, 0.17-0.22; and >5.0 cm vs ≤0.5 cm: OR, 0.11; 95% CI, 0.08-0.15) and lower grade (intermediate vs low: OR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.69-0.80). Multivariate logistic regression analysis demonstrated that younger age (60-79 vs 40-49 years: OR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.77-0.92; and ≥80 vs 40 to 49 years: OR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.64-0.91), negative estrogen receptor status (positive vs negative: OR, 0.39; 95% CI, 0.34-0.43), treatment at an academic facility (academic vs community: OR, 2.08; 95% CI, 1.82-2.38), and higher annual income (>$63 000 vs <$38 000: OR, 1.14; 95% CI, 1.02-1.28) were significantly associated with an upgraded diagnosis of invasive carcinoma based on final pathologic findings. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: When selecting patients for active surveillance of DCIS, factors other than tumor biology associated with invasive carcinoma based on final pathologic findings may need to be considered. At the time of randomization to active surveillance, a significant proportion of patients with non-high-grade DCIS will harbor invasive carcinoma.

Initial Results of Multigene Panel Testing for Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer and Lynch Syndrome.

Multigene panel testing for hereditary cancer risk has recently become commercially available; however, the impact of its use on patient care is undefined. We sought to evaluate results from implementation of panel testing in a multidisciplinary cancer center. We performed a retrospective review of consecutive patients undergoing genetic testing after initiating use of multigene panel testing at Loma Linda University Medical Center. From February 13 to August 25, 2014, 92 patients were referred for genetic testing based on National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines. Testing was completed in 90 patients. Overall, nine (10%) pathogenic mutations were identified: five BRCA1/2, and four in non-BRCA loci. Single-site testing identified one BRCA1 and one BRCA2 mutation. The remaining mutations were identified by use of panel testing for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer. There were 40 variants of uncertain significance identified in 34 patients. The use of panel testing more than doubled the identification rate of clinically significant pathogenic mutations that would have been missed with BRCA testing alone. The large number of variants of uncertain significance identified will require long-term follow-up for potential reclassification. Multigene panel testing provides additional information that may improve patient outcomes.

Size of Extranodal Extension on Sentinel Lymph Node Dissection in the American College of Surgeons Oncology Group Z0011 Trial Era.

IMPORTANCE: Based on the American College of Surgeons Oncology Group Z0011 trial exclusion criteria, patients with T1N0 or T2N0 breast cancer with 1 or 2 positive sentinel lymph nodes (SLNs) are recommended to undergo axillary lymph node dissection if extranodal extension (ENE) is present. OBJECTIVE: To determine the effect of ENE size on residual axillary nodal burden, disease recurrence, and survival in patients meeting Z0011 criteria. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Retrospective cohort study between January 1, 2000, and December 31, 2012, at a single tertiary cancer center. Patients had T1 or T2 breast cancer with 1 or 2 positive SLNs. The ENE was classified as 2 mm or smaller or as larger than 2 mm. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Nodal burden, disease recurrence, and overall survival. RESULTS: Of 208 patients, 149 (71.6%) had no ENE, 21 (10.1%) had ENE 2 mm or smaller, and 38 (18.3%) had ENE larger than 2 mm on SLN dissection. The median follow-up time was 60 months (range, 1-158 months). The mean (SD) total number of positive lymph nodes differed significantly for the group with no ENE (1.72 [1.39]) vs the group with ENE 2 mm or smaller (3.22 [2.09]; P < .001) and vs the group with ENE larger than 2 mm (4.26 [5.01]; P < .001). Similar patterns were observed for mean (SD) nonsentinel lymph node metastases: 0.48 (1.30) for no ENE vs 1.91 (2.07) with ENE 2 mm or smaller (P = .02) and vs 2.95 (4.95) with ENE larger than 2 mm (P < .001). For the group without ENE vs the group with ENE 2 mm or smaller, there were no significant differences in recurrence (distant recurrence, 4 patients [2.7%] vs 1 patient [4.8%], respectively; P = .62) or in mortality (18 patients [12.1%] vs 4 patients [19.1%], respectively; P = .48). For the group without ENE vs the group with ENE larger than 2 mm, there were no significant differences in recurrence (distant recurrence, 4 patients [2.7%] vs 4 patients [10.5%], respectively; P = .19) or in mortality (18 patients [12.1%] vs 9 patients [23.7%], respectively; P = .07). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Presence of ENE on SLN dissection is associated with N2 disease. Despite increased nodal burden, patients with 1 or 2 positive SLNs and ENE 2 mm or smaller demonstrated recurrence and survival rates similar to those of patients without ENE. Reporting of ENE size should be standardized and required.

Underreporting of Gastrointestinal Stromal Tumors: Is the True Incidence Being Captured?

BACKGROUND: Hospital cancer registries are only required to report gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GISTs) if labeled malignant or metastatic, leading to potential loss of cases in national cancer registries. Our objective was to determine whether GISTs are underreported in the US. METHODS: Retrospective review of pathology reports between 2010 and 2013 with diagnosis of GIST was performed at two academic medical centers. Recurrent GISTs were excluded. Pathology reports were cross-referenced to cases reported by each cancer registry. Risk for metastasis/death was determined according to National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines. RESULTS: Forty-nine cases of non-recurrent GIST were identified. Only 19/49 (38.8%) cases were reported. None of the 30 non-reported cases were labeled malignant/metastatic on final pathology. To illustrate malignant potential, these tumors were risk stratified. Most (60%) of the non-reported cases were low risk, but there were 4 (13.3%) cases each in the intermediate, high, and unknown risk groups. Additionally, 7/30 (23.0%) cases were treated with tyrosine kinase inhibitors, highlighting clinical concern of malignant GIST. CONCLUSIONS: Our results show that nearly two thirds of GIST cases have been underreported, suggesting that current reporting practices underestimate its true incidence. Revision of reporting guidelines may result in a more accurate estimation of the US disease burden of GIST.

Surgical and radiation therapy management of recurrent anal melanoma.

BACKGROUND: Melanoma of the anorectal mucosa is a rare but highly aggressive tumor. Its presenting symptoms are frequently confused with hemorrhoids, thereby causing a delay in diagnosis. Anorectal melanoma carries with it a very poor prognosis. There is a paucity of data investigating management options for anorectal melanoma, and even fewer data reporting recurrent or refractory cases. CASE PRESENTATION: This case documents a 41-year-old female with a long history of hemorrhoids presenting with anorectal discharge. She was incidentally found have anorectal melanoma following surgical resection. Systemic diagnostic work-up demonstrated PET-avid lymphadenopathy in her right groin. She underwent right groin dissection. However, seven months later she recurred in her right groin and a new recurrent mass was found in her pelvis. She underwent a second groin dissection and resection of the pelvic recurrence. This was followed by a course of hypofractionated radiation therapy then systemic immunotherapy. DISCUSSION: Surgery has been the mainstay of treatment. However, the extent of surgery has been the topic of investigation. Historically, radical resections have been performed but they result in high rates of post-operative morbidity. Newer studies have compared radical resection with wide local excisions and found comparable outcomes. Anorectal melanoma is frequently a systemic disease. The ideal systemic therapy regimen has not yet been determined but numerous studies show a benefit to multi-agent treatments. Radiation therapy is typically given in the post-operative or palliative setting. CONCLUSIONS: Anorectal mucosal melanoma is a very rare but aggressive disease with a poor prognosis. The overall treatment goal should strive to optimize quality of life and tumor control while minimizing treatment-related morbidities.

Rate of re-excision after breast-conserving surgery for invasive lobular carcinoma.

Invasive lobular carcinoma (ILC) accounts for approximately 5 to 20 per cent of all breast cancers and is often multicentric. Despite pre- and intraoperative assessments to achieve negative margins, ILC is reported to be associated with higher rates of positive margin. This cross-sectional study examined patients with breast cancer treated at our institution from 2000 to 2010. The objective was to investigate the rate of re-excision resulting from positive or close margin (1 mm or less) in patients who underwent breast-conserving surgery (BCS) for ILC compared with invasive ductal carcinoma (IDC) and ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS). Of the 836 patients treated, 416 patients underwent BCS. The rate of re-excision after BCS for ILC was 35.1 versus 17.7 per cent for IDC and 20.0 per cent for DCIS (P = 0.04). Re-excisions were more often performed for positive margin in patients with ILC (11 of 37 [29.7%]) versus IDC (36 of 334 [10.8%]) and DCIS (five of 45 [11.1%];(P = 0.004). In this single-institution review, BCS for ILC had significantly higher rates of re-excision as a result of positive margins when compared with IDC and DCIS. Tumor size greater than 2 cm and lymph node involvement were identified as factors associated with positive surgical margin in ILC. The higher possibility of positive margins and the need for additional procedures should be discussed with patients undergoing BCS for ILC.

Outcomes in the management of appendicitis and cholecystitis in the setting of a new acute care surgery service model: impact on timing and cost.

BACKGROUND: The acute care surgery model is a novel notion in the provision of emergency general surgery. To date, several studies have analyzed the effects on patient health outcomes and timeliness of care for nontrauma patients within the scope of acute general surgery and emergencies, but none have assessed the cost benefits of this model. STUDY DESIGN: A retrospective analysis of patients undergoing appendectomy or cholecystectomy in the setting of acute abdomen was performed to compare data from 2 cohorts, the traditional model from July 2009 to June 2010 and the acute care surgery model from July 2010 to June 2011. Categorical variables and comparison means were examined using chi-square and independent 2-tailed sample t-tests. RESULTS: One hundred and seventy-five patients underwent appendectomy and 113 underwent cholecystectomy. The traditional model team staffed 82 appendectomies and 51 cholecystectomies, and the acute care surgery team staffed 93 and 62, respectively. In the appendectomy group, there was a statistically significant mean reduction of time to surgical evaluation (2.19 hours; p < 0.001) and time to the operating room (5.38 hours, p = 0.006), there were 7 fewer patients with complications (p = 0.06) and a reduced length of stay (1 day, p = 0.002) for the acute care surgery cohort. Similar statistically significant differences were observed in the cholecystectomy group in the acute care surgery cohort: surgical evaluation difference = 5.84 hours (p = 0.03), time to operating room difference = 25.37 hours (p = 0.002), 8 fewer patients with complications (p = 0.01), and length of stay difference was 2 days (p = 0.03) compared with the traditional model cohort. CONCLUSIONS: The newly implemented acute care surgery model in our institution accomplished earlier treatment and shorter length of stay for the 2 most common causes of acute abdomen in our setting. Overall, the new model translated to better outcomes for patients and savings per case for the hospital.