Dermatologic toxicities of chemotherapy: an educational intervention for skin of color women with breast cancer.

Minority patients are more likely to require dose adjustments for chemotherapy, with cultural barriers and access to medical care cited as contributory factors. Objective: We sought to pilot an educational intervention, in the form of a pamphlet, to evaluate the effectiveness of this tool in teaching skin of color (SoC) patients about potential dermatologic toxicities of chemotherapy that are relevant to their skin type. Methods: At a chemotherapy infusion center, SoC patients (n = 26) who were receiving chemotherapy for breast cancer voluntarily consented to read an educational pamphlet and complete a series of survey questions before and after this educational intervention. Results: Most participants identified as female (96%), African American/Black (81%), and non-Hispanic (85%); all respondents had obtained at least a high school degree. Survey responses revealed a significant increase in knowledge about the potential dermatologic effects of cancer treatment after this intervention. Notably, 100% of participants either agreed or strongly agreed that they would like to see other doctors use this educational tool as a form of patient education, that they would recommend this pamphlet to other patients who are starting cancer treatment, and that the pamphlet was easy to understand. Limitations: Limitations of this study include small sample size and single-institution recruitment, which may limit generalizability. Furthermore, this study only included patients who are proficient in English. Conclusion: This study pilots an effective educational tool that addresses dermatologic toxicities of chemotherapy that are relevant to SoC patients. Further multi-institutional studies with larger sample sizes and translation to other languages can overcome the limitations of this pilot study.

Outcomes of 350 Robotic-assisted Esophagectomies at a High-volume Cancer Center: A Contemporary Propensity-score Matched Analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate perioperative and oncologic outcomes in our RAMIE cohort and compare outcomes with contemporary OE controls. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: RAMIE has emerged as an alternative to traditional open or laparoscopic approaches. Described in all esophagectomy techniques, rapid adoption has been attributed to both enhanced visualization and technical dexterity. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed patients who underwent RAMIE for malignancy. Patient characteristics, perioperative outcomes, and survival were evaluated. For perioperative and oncologic outcome comparison, contemporary OE controls were propensity-score matched from NSQIP and NCDB databases. RESULTS: We identified 350 patients who underwent RAMIE between 2010 and 2019. Median body mass index was 27.4, 32% demonstrated a Charlson Comorbidity Index >4. Nodal disease was identified in 50% of patients and 74% received neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy. Mean operative time and blood loss were 425 minutes and 232 mL, respectively. Anastomotic leak occurred in 16% of patients, 2% required reoperation. Median LOS was 9 days, and 30-day mortality was 3%. A median of 21 nodes were dissected with 96% achieving an R0 resection. Median survival was 67.4 months. 222 RAMIE were matched 1:1 to the NSQIP OE control. RAMIE demonstrated decreased LOS (9 vs 10 days, P = 0.010) and reoperative rates (2.3 vs 12.2%, P = 0.001), longer operative time (427 vs 311 minutes, P = 0.001), and increased rate of pulmonary embolism (5.4% vs 0.9%, P = 0.007) in comparison to NSQIP cohort. There was no difference in leak rate or mortality. Three hundred forty-three RAMIE were matched to OE cohort from NCDB with no difference in median overall survival (63 vs 53 months; P = 0.130). CONCLUSION: In this largest reported institutional series, we demonstrate that RAMIE can be performed safely with excellent oncologic outcomes and decreased hospital stay when compared to the open approach.

Gastrointestinal Disease-Specific Survivorship Care: A New Personalized Model Integrating Onco-Wellness.

Although the number of gastrointestinal (GI) cancer survivors is projected to increase in the coming years, there are currently no survivorship care models that address the specific and growing needs of this population. Current survivorship care models were evaluated to assess their suitability for GI cancer survivors. A survivorship care model based on foundational wellness principles is under development to address the specific needs of GI cancer survivors. This model delivers a cohesive and collaborative care continuum for survivors of different GI malignancies. Oncology providers in GI departments and internal medicine providers in survivorship programs are positioned to provide a comprehensive approach for the care of patients treated with curative intent. Survivorship care is introduced at the conclusion of active treatment in the form of an Onco-wellness consultation, an in-person or telemedicine comprehensive care plan creation and review by our Survivorship Program. Personalized care plan including long term and late effects of treatment, nutrition, physical activity and rehabilitation recommendations, prevention of secondary malignancies and psychosocial needs are reviewed. As patients transition from active treatment to survivorship within the GI Program, the GI Advance Practice Professionals (APPs) are well-positioned to deliver comprehensive survivorship care specific to the GI patient's needs while integrating recommendations and principles from the Onco-wellness consultation. With projected shortages of both oncology and primary care physicians, such an APP-based model has the potential to bridge gaps in the survivorship care continuum and mutually benefit patients and physicians.

Impact of histology classification on pathologic treatment response and overall survival in distal esophageal cancer patients: a propensity matched analysis.

BACKGROUND: Esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC) has been linked to superior pathologic treatment response compared to esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC) after neoadjuvant chemoradiation. However, the impact of histology on survival remains unclear. It has been suggested, based on epidemiologic similarities, that distal EAC should be grouped with gastric cancers as an entity distinct from distal ESCC, but there is little data to support this recommendation. We therefore aim to compare pathologic treatment response (PTR) and overall survival (OS) in patients with distal EAC versus distal ESCC. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study included patients who underwent esophagectomy for distal esophageal malignancy. Histologic sub-groups were matched (1:1) using a propensity-score matching approach. Pre-operative clinical parameters, oncologic outcomes and survival were compared between groups. RESULTS: 1031 distal EC patients, with a median age of 64.4 years and a male preponderance (86.5%), underwent esophagectomy at our institution between 1999 and 2019. 939 (91.1%) patients had a diagnosis of EAC and 92 (8.9%) had ESCC. A higher proportion of ESCC patients were female (26.1% vs. 12.1%; P < 0.01) and non-white (12.0% vs. 3.8%; P < 0.01). Propensity-score sub-analysis identified 75 matched pairs. Rates of pathologic complete response (58.0% vs. 48.9%; P = 0.67) and OS (43.0 vs. 52.0 months; P = 0.808) were not significantly different between matched groups. CONCLUSIONS: Although traditionally known to have a better overall PTR compared to EAC, ESCC patients in our large series did not show any improvement in PTR or OS. Treatment recommendations for patients with EAC and ESCC should consider tumor location in addition to histology.

Clinical Factors and Outcomes of Octogenarians Receiving Curative Surgery for Esophageal Cancer.

BACKGROUND: The incidence of esophageal cancer is increasing in the United States. Although neoadjuvant therapy (NAT) for locally advanced cancers followed by surgical resection is the standard of care, there are no clearly defined guidelines for patients aged ≥79 y. METHODS: Query of an institutional review board-approved database of 1031 esophagectomies at our institution revealed 35 patients aged ≥79 y from 1999 to 2017 who underwent esophagectomy. Age, gender, tumor location, histology, clinical stage, Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI), NAT administration, pathologic response rate to NAT, surgery type, negative margin resection status, postoperative complications, postoperative death, length of stay, 30- and 90-d mortality, and disease status parameters were analyzed in association with clinical outcome. RESULTS: The median age of the octogenarian cohort was 82.1 y with a male preponderance (91.4%). American Joint Committee on Cancer clinical staging was stage I for 20% of patients, stage II for 27% of patients, and stage III for 50% of patients, which was not statistically significant compared with the younger cohort (P = 0.576). Within the octogenarian group, 54% received NAT compared with 67% in the younger group (P = 0.098). There was no difference in postoperative complications (P = 0.424), postoperative death (P = 0.312), and recurrence rate (P = 0.434) between the groups. However, CCI was significantly different between the octogenarian and nonoctogenarian cohort (P = 0.008), and octogenarians had shorter overall survival (18 versus 62 mo, P<0.001). None of the other parameters assessed were associated with clinical outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Curative surgery is viable and safe for octogenarians with esophageal cancer. Long-term survival was significantly shorter in the octogenarian group, suggesting the need for better clinical selection criteria for esophagectomy after chemoradiation and that identification of complete responders for nonoperative management is warranted.

Clinical factors associated with the development of postoperative atrial fibrillation in esophageal cancer patients receiving multimodality therapy before surgery.

BACKGROUND: The incidence of esophageal cancer (EC) is increasing in the USA. Neoadjuvant therapy for locally advanced cancers followed by surgical resection is the standard of care. The most common post-esophagectomy cardiac complication is atrial fibrillation (AF). New-onset postoperative AF can require a prolonged hospital stay and may confer an overall poorer prognosis. In this study, we seek to identify clinical factors associated with postoperative AF. METHODS: Query of an IRB approved database of 1,039 esophagectomies at our institution revealed 677 patients with EC from 1999 to 2017 who underwent esophagectomy after neoadjuvant treatment. Age, treatment location (primary vs. other), gender, neoadjuvant radiation type [2D vs. 3D vs. intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT)], radiation dose, surgery type (transthoracic vs. transhiatal vs. three field), smoking history, coronary artery disease (CAD), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), operative time, blood transfusions, fluid management, and length of stay (LOS) were analyzed in relationship to the development of AF. Statistical analysis was performed with SPSS 24. RESULTS: The mean age of the entire cohort was 64.3 (range, 28-86 years), with a Caucasian and male preponderance (White: 94.5%; male: 83.6%). Of the 677 patients, 14.9% (n=101) developed postoperative AF. Increasing age (P<0.001), increased radiation dose (P=0.034), operative time (P=0.001), and blood transfusions (P=0.027) were associated with AF. LOS was longer in patients with AF than those without AF (10.5 vs. 10.0 days, P=0.001). On multivariate analysis, increasing age (95% CI: 1.023-1.080, P<0.001) and radiation dose (95% CI: 1.000-1.001, P=0.034) remained significant. None of the other parameters assessed were associated with the development of AF. CONCLUSIONS: Increasing age and radiation dose were associated with the development of postoperative AF in this cohort. This study suggests that older patients or patients receiving higher radiation dose should be monitored more closely in the postoperative setting and potentially referred earlier preoperatively for cardio-oncology assessment. Future study is required to determine if modification of current radiation techniques and cardiac dose constraints in this patient population may be warranted.

Is Preoperative G-Tube Use Safe for Esophageal Cancer Patients?

Objective: Gastrostomy tubes (g-tubes) have been used with caution prior to esophageal resection due to the risks of inoculation metastasis and of injury to the gastric conduit used for reconstruction. In this study, we aim to evaluate the safety of preoperative g-tube placement by comparing outcomes in patients undergoing esophageal resection with and without prior g-tube use.Method: We retrospectively reviewed our institution's database of 1113 esophagectomies performed between 1994 and 2018. We included only patients who received neoadjuvant therapy and identified 65 patients who received preoperative nutritional support through a g-tube (GT+) and 657 who did not (GT-). Demographics, postoperative complications, survival, and cancer recurrence rates were compared between GT + and GT- using Chi-squared and Kaplan-Meier survival analyses.Results: Seven-hundred twenty-two patients (122 female, 600 male) with a median age of 63.2 (28.2-86.3) met our inclusion criteria. Between GT+ (n = 65) and GT- (n = 657), there were no significant differences in anastomotic leak rates (11.5% vs 10.9%; p = 0.901), postoperative mortality (3.1% vs 3.9%; p = 0.765), or overall complications (63.1% vs 65.1%; p = 0.746). GT + was associated with a significantly lower overall survival compared to GT- (32.5 m vs 92.9 m; p = 0.003), and tumor recurrence rates were similar (30.6% vs 31.8%; p = 0.851). There were no cases documenting damage to the gastric conduit caused by prior g-tube placement.Conclusions: G-tube usage was not associated with increased tumor recurrence, anastomotic leak rates, or overall complication rates in this study. Our data suggest that g-tube usage is safe for patients with esophageal cancer requiring preoperative nutrition.

Robotics in surgery: is a robot necessary? For what?

Every operation can be categorized along a spectrum from "most invasive" to "least invasive", based on the approach(es) through which it is commonly undertaken. Operations that are considered "most invasive" are characterized by "open" approaches with a relatively high degree of morbidity, while operations that are considered "least invasive" are undertaken with minimally invasive techniques and are associated with relatively improved patient outcomes, including faster recovery times and fewer complications. Because of the potential for reduced morbidity, movement along the spectrum towards minimally invasive surgery (MIS) is associated with a host of salutary benefits and, as well, lower costs of patient care. Accordingly, the goal of all stakeholders in surgery should be to attain universal application of the most minimally invasive approaches. Yet the difficulty of performing minimally invasive operations has largely limited its widespread application in surgery, particularly in the context of complex operations (i.e., those requiring complex extirpation and/or reconstruction). Robotic surgery, however, may facilitate application of minimally invasive techniques requisite for particular operations. Enhancements in visualization and dexterity offered by robotic surgical systems allow busy surgeons to quickly gain proficiency in demanding techniques (e.g., pancreaticojejunostomy), within a short learning curve. That is not to say, however, that all operations undertaken with minimally invasive techniques require robotic technology. Herein, we attempt to define how surgeon skill, operative difficulty, patient outcomes, and cost factors determine when robotic technology should be reasonably applied to patient care in surgery.