Readmissions following pancreaticoduodenectomy for pancreas cancer: a population-based appraisal.

Procedure complexity and volume-outcome relationships have led to increased regionalization of pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) for pancreas cancer. Knowledge regarding outcomes after PD comes from single-institutional series, which may be limited if a significant number of patients follow up at other hospitals. Thus, readmission data may be underreported. This study utilizes a population-based data set to examine readmission data following PD. California Cancer Registry (1994-2003) was linked to the California's Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development (OSHPD) database; patients with pancreatic adenocarcinoma who had undergone PD, excluding perioperative (30-day) mortality, were identified. All hospital readmissions within 1 year following PD were analyzed with respect to timing, location, and reason for readmission. Our cohort included 2,023 patients who underwent PD for pancreas cancer. Fifty-nine percent were readmitted within 1 year following PD and 47% were readmitted to a secondary hospital. Readmission was associated with worse median survival compared with those not readmitted (10.5 versus 22 months, p<0.0001). Multivariate analysis revealed that increasing T-stage, age, and comorbidities were associated with increased likelihood of readmission. Diagnoses associated with high rates of readmission included progression of disease (24%), surgery-related complications (14%), and infection (13%). Diabetes (1.4%) and pain (1.5%) were associated with low rates of readmission. We found a readmission rate of 59%, which is much higher than previously reported by single institutional series. Concordantly, nearly half of patients readmitted were readmitted to a secondary hospital. Common reasons for readmission included progression of disease, surgical complications, and infection. These findings should assist in both anticipating and facilitating postoperative care as well as managing patient expectations. This study utilizes a novel population-based database to evaluate incidence, timing, location, and reasons for readmission within 1 year following pancreaticoduodenectomy. Fifty-nine percent of patients were readmitted within 1 year after pancreaticoduodenectomy and 47% were readmitted to a secondary hospital.

Utilization of parenteral nutrition following pancreaticoduodenectomy: is routine jejunostomy tube placement warranted?

INTRODUCTION: Complications following pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) often necessitate nutritional support. This study analyzes the utilization of parenteral nutrition (TPN) during the surgical admission as evidence for or against routine jejunostomy placement. METHODS: The California Cancer Registry (1994-2003) was linked to the California Inpatient File; PD for adenocarcinoma was performed in 1,873 patients. TPN use and enterostomy tube placement were determined and preoperative characteristics predictive of TPN use during the surgical admission were identified. RESULTS: Fourteen percent of patients received TPN, 23% underwent enterostomy tube placement, and 63% received no supplemental nutritional support. TPN was associated with longer hospital stay (18 vs. 13 days, P < 0.0001). The Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI) > or = 3 had nearly two-fold greater odds of receiving TPN (odds ratio [OR] = 1.85, P < 0.005). CONCLUSION: Approximately 1 in 6 patients undergoing PD received TPN, which was associated with prolonged hospital stay. CCI > or = 3 was associated with increased odds of TPN utilization. Selected jejunostomy placement in patients with high CCI is worthy of consideration.

Do racial/ethnic disparities exist in the utilization of high-volume surgeons for women with ovarian cancer?

OBJECTIVE: Determine if racial/ethnic disparities exist for access to high-volume surgeons (HVS) for patients with ovarian cancer. METHODS: Retrospective study of ovarian cancer surgeries identified by the California Cancer Registry (CCR) linked to hospital discharge data (1991-2002). Surgeon volume was defined as HVS (>10 ovarian cancer surgeries/year), middle volume (MVS; 2-9/year), and low volume (LVS;

The significance of inadvertent splenectomy during colorectal cancer resection.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the frequency, predictors, and outcomes following inadvertent splenectomy during colorectal cancer resection. DESIGN: Retrospective study. SETTING: Linkage of the California Cancer Registry and the California Patient Discharge Database from the Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development. PARTICIPANTS: Californians undergoing colorectal cancer resection from 1995 through 2001. Inadvertent splenectomy was defined as splenectomy occurring during non-T4 or non-stage IV resection. Main Outcome Measure The rate of inadvertent splenectomy for the overall cohort and by tumor location (eg, splenic flexure, rectosigmoid). Multivariate risk-adjusted models identified predictors of inadvertent splenectomy and outcomes including length of stay and probability of death. RESULTS: A total of 41,999 non-T4, non-stage IV colorectal cancer resections were studied. Mean age was 70.4 years; 50.4% were male; and 75.6% were non-Hispanic white. Although the overall rate of inadvertent splenectomy was less than 1%, the rate was 6% for splenic flexure tumors. A multivariate risk-adjusted model predicting inadvertent splenectomy demonstrated a statistically significant (P < .001) higher odds ratio if the tumor was located in the transverse (3.6), splenic flexure (29.2), descending (11.4), sigmoid (2.7), or rectosigmoid (2.6) regions. Using a risk-adjusted model, inadvertent splenectomy increased length of stay by 37.4% (P < .001). Perhaps most important, risk-adjusted survival analysis showed splenectomy increased the probability of death by 40% (P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: To our knowledge, this is the first large study evaluating the rates and outcomes after inadvertent splenectomy. In the population-based cohort, tumor locations from the transverse colon to the rectosigmoid significantly increased the odds of inadvertent splenectomy. In addition, inadvertent splenectomy during colorectal cancer resection increased both length of stay and probability of death.

A patient's race/ethnicity does not explain the underuse of appropriate adjuvant therapy in colorectal cancer.

INTRODUCTION: To improve colorectal cancer outcomes, appropriate adjuvant therapy (chemotherapy, radiation therapy) should be given. Numerous studies have demonstrated underuse of adjuvant therapy in colorectal cancer. The current study examines variables associated with underuse of adjuvant therapy. METHODS: Three population-based databases were linked: California Cancer Registry, California Patient Discharge Database, 2000 Census. All colorectal cancer patients diagnosed from 1994 to 2001 were studied. Patient characteristics (age, gender, race/ethnicity, comorbidities, payer, diagnosis year, socioeconomic status) were used in five multivariate regression analyses to predict receipt of chemotherapy for Stage III colon cancer, and receipt of chemotherapy and radiation therapy for Stages II, III rectal cancer. RESULTS: The overall cohort was 18,649 Stage III colon cancer and Stages II, III rectal cancer patients. Mean age was 68.9 years, 50 percent male, 74 percent non-Hispanic white, 6 percent black, 11 percent Hispanic, 9 percent Asian, and 65 percent had no significant comorbid disease. Receipt of chemotherapy was 48 percent for Stage III colon cancer, 48 percent for Stage II rectal cancer, and 66 percent for Stage III rectal cancer. Receipt of radiation therapy was 52 percent for Stage II rectal cancer and 66 percent for Stage III rectal cancer. In all five models, low socioeconomic status predicted underuse of chemotherapy or radiation therapy (P < 0.016). Race/ethnicity was not statistically associated with underuse in any of the models. CONCLUSIONS: Most literature identifies race/ethnicity as the reason for disparate receipt of adjuvant therapy in colorectal cancer. Using a more robust database of three population-based sources, our analysis demonstrates that socioeconomic status is a more important predictor of (in)appropriate care than race/ethnicity. Explicit measures to improve care to the poor with colorectal cancer are needed.