Search

This survey study describes the association between patient preference and physician decision-making in thyroid cancer.

ObjectiveThe aim of this study was to determine whether exposure to data from a risk calculator influences surgeons' assessments of risk and in turn, their decisions to operate.BackgroundLittle is known about how risk calculators inform clinical judgment and decision-making.MethodsWe asked a national sample of surgeons to assess the risks (probability of serious complications or death) and benefits (recovery) of operative and nonoperative management and to rate their likelihood of recommending an operation (5-point scale) for 4 detailed clinical vignettes wherein the best treatment strategy was uncertain. Surgeons were randomized to the clinical vignettes alone (control group; n = 384) or supplemented by data from a risk calculator (risk calculator group; n = 395). We compared surgeons' judgments and decisions between the groups.ResultsSurgeons exposed to the risk calculator judged levels of operative risk that more closely approximated the risk calculator value (RCV) compared with surgeons in the control group [mesenteric ischemia: 43.7% vs 64.6%, P < 0.001 (RCV = 25%); gastrointestinal bleed: 47.7% vs 53.4%, P < 0.001 (RCV = 38%); small bowel obstruction: 13.6% vs 17.5%, P < 0.001 (RCV = 14%); appendicitis: 13.4% vs 24.4%, P < 0.001 (RCV = 5%)]. Surgeons exposed to the risk calculator also varied less in their assessment of operative risk (standard deviations: mesenteric ischemia 20.2% vs 23.2%, P = 0.01; gastrointestinal bleed 17.4% vs 24.1%, P < 0.001; small bowel obstruction 10.6% vs 14.9%, P < 0.001; appendicitis 15.2% vs 21.8%, P < 0.001). However, averaged across the 4 vignettes, the 2 groups did not differ in their reported likelihood of recommending an operation (mean 3.7 vs 3.7, P = 0.76).ConclusionsExposure to risk calculator data leads to less varied and more accurate judgments of operative risk among surgeons, and thus may help inform discussions of treatment options between surgeons and patients. Interestingly, it did not alter their reported likelihood of recommending an operation.

ObjectiveTo determine how surgeons' perceptions of treatment risks and benefits influence their decisions to operate.BackgroundLittle is known about what makes one surgeon choose to operate on a patient and another chooses not to operate.MethodsUsing an online study, we presented a national sample of surgeons (N = 767) with four detailed clinical vignettes (mesenteric ischemia, gastrointestinal bleed, bowel obstruction, appendicitis) where the best treatment option was uncertain and asked them to: (1) judge the risks (probability of serious complications) and benefits (probability of recovery) for operative and nonoperative management and (2) decide whether or not they would recommend an operation.ResultsAcross all clinical vignettes, surgeons varied markedly in both their assessments of the risks and benefits of operative and nonoperative management (narrowest range 4%-100% for all four predictions across vignettes) and in their decisions to operate (49%-85%). Surgeons were less likely to operate as their perceptions of operative risk increased [absolute difference (AD) = -29.6% from 1.0 standard deviation below to 1.0 standard deviation above mean (95% confidence interval, CI: -31.6, -23.8)] and their perceptions of nonoperative benefit increased [AD = -32.6% (95% CI: -32.8,--28.9)]. Surgeons were more likely to operate as their perceptions of operative benefit increased [AD = 18.7% (95% CI: 12.6, 21.5)] and their perceptions of nonoperative risk increased [AD = 32.7% (95% CI: 28.7, 34.0)]. Differences in risk/benefit perceptions explained 39% of the observed variation in decisions to operate across the four vignettes.ConclusionsGiven the same clinical scenarios, surgeons' perceptions of treatment risks and benefits vary and are highly predictive of their decisions to operate.

Objective: To analyze postrecurrence progression in the context of recurrence sites and assess implications for postrecurrence treatment. Background:Most patientswith resected pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) recur within 2 years. Different survival outcomes for locationspecific patterns of recurrence are reported, highlighting their prognostic value. However, a lack of understanding of postrecurrence progression and survival remains. Methods: This retrospective analysis included surgically treated patients with PDAC at NYU Langone Health (2010-2021). Sites of recurrence were identified at the time of diagnosis and further follow-up. Kaplan-Meier curves, log-rank test, and Cox regression analyses were applied to assess survival outcomes. Results: Recurrence occurred in 57.3% (196/342) patients with a median time to recurrence of 11.3 months (95% CI: 12.6-16.5). The first site of recurrence was local in 43.9% of patients, liver in 23.5%, peritoneal in 8.7%, lung in 3.6%, whereas 20.4% had multiple sites of recurrence. Progression to secondary sites was observed in 11.7%. Only lung involvement was associated with significantly longer survival after recurrence compared with other sites (16.9 vs 8.49 months, P = 0.003). In local recurrence, 21 (33.3%) patients were alive after 1 year without progression to secondary sites. This was associated with a CA19-9 of <100 U/mL at the time of primary diagnosis (P = 0.039), nodal negative disease (P = 0.023), and well-moderate differentiation (P = 0.042) compared with patients with progression. Conclusion: Except for lung recurrence, postrecurrence survival after PDAC resection is associated with poor survival. A subset of patients with local-only recurrence do not quickly succumb to systemic spread. This is associated with markers for favorable tumor biology, making them candidates for potential curative re-resections when feasible. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The appropriate surgical approach for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) is determined by the tumor's relation to the porto-mesenteric axis. Although the extent and location of lymphadenectomy is dependent on the type of resection, a pancreatoduodenectomy (PD), distal pancreatectomy (DP), or total pancreatectomy (TP) are considered equivalent oncologic operations for pancreatic neck tumors. Therefore, we aimed to assess differences in histopathological and oncological outcomes for surgical approaches in the treatment of pancreatic neck tumors. Methods: Patients with resected PDAC located in the pancreatic neck were identified from the National Cancer Database (2004–2020). Patients with metastatic disease were excluded. Furthermore, patients with 90-day mortality and R2-resections were excluded from the multivariable Cox-regression analysis. Results: Among 846 patients, 58% underwent PD, 25% DP, and 17% TP with similar R0-resection rates (p = 0.722). Significant differences were observed in nodal positivity (PD:44%, DP:34%, TP:57%, p < 0.001) and mean-number of examined lymph nodes (PD:17.2 ± 10.4, DP:14.7 ± 10.5, TP:21.2 ± 11.0, p < 0.001). Furthermore, inadequate lymphadenectomy (< 12 nodes) was observed in 30%, 44%, and 19% of patients undergoing PD, DP, and TP, respectively (p < 0.001). Multivariable analysis yielded similar overall survival after DP (HR:0.83, 95%CI:0.63–1.11), while TP was associated with worse survival (HR:1.43, 95%CI:1.08–1.89) compared to PD. Conclusion: While R0-rates are similar amongst all approaches, DP is associated with inadequate lymphadenectomy which may result in understaging disease. However, this had no negative influence on survival. In the premise that an oncological resection of the pancreatic neck tumor is feasible with a partial pancreatectomy, no benefit is observed by performing a TP. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

PurposeGiven the well-established relationship between surgical volume and outcomes for many surgical procedures, we examined whether the same relationship exists for gastroschisis closure.MethodsWe conducted a retrospective analysis of infants who underwent gastroschisis closure between 1999 and 2007 using a California birth-linked cohort. Hospitals were divided into terciles based on the number of gastroschisis closures performed annually. Using regression techniques, we examined the effects of hospital volume on patient mortality and length of stay while controlling for patient and hospital confounders.ResultsWe identified 1537 infants who underwent gastroschisis repair at 55 hospitals, 4 of which were high-volume and 42 of which were low-volume. The overall in-hospital mortality rate was 4.8% and the median length of stay was 46.5days. After controlling for other factors, patients treated at high-volume hospitals had significantly lower odds of inpatient mortality (OR 0.40; 95% CI 0.21, 0.76). There was a near-significant trend towards shorter hospital length of stay at highvolume hospitals (p=0.066).ConclusionsPatients who undergo gastroschisis closure at high-volume hospitals in California experience lower odds of in-hospital mortality compared to those treated at low-volume hospitals. These findings offer initial evidence to support policies that limit the number of hospitals providing complex newborn surgical care.

BackgroundLong-term survival (LTS) is uncommon for patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC). We sought to identify factors that predict 10-year, LTS after resection of PDAC.MethodsWe identified all patients with PDAC who underwent resection at UCLA after 1990 and included all patients eligible for observed LTS (1/1/1990-12/31/2004). An independent pathologist reconfirmed the diagnosis of PDAC in patients with LTS. Logistic regression was used to predict LTS on the basis of patient and tumor characteristics.ResultsOf 173 included patients, 53% were male, median age at diagnosis was 66 years, and median survival was 23 months. The rate of observed LTS was 12.1% (n = 21). Age, sex, number of lymph nodes evaluated, margin status, lymphovascular invasion, and adjuvant chemotherapy and radiation were not associated with LTS. The following were associated with LTS on bivariate analysis: low AJCC stage (Ia, Ib, IIa) (P = .034), negative lymph node status (P = .034), low grade (well-, moderately-differentiated) (P = .001), and absence of perineural invasion (P = .019). Only low grade (odds ratio 7.17, P = .012) and absent perineural invasion (odds ratio 3.28, P = .036) were independently associated with increased odds of LTS. Our multivariate model demonstrated good discriminatory power for LTS, as indicated by a c-statistic of 0.7856.ConclusionAbsence of perineural invasion and low tumor grade were associated with greater likelihood of LTS. Understanding the tumor biology of LTS may provide critical insight into a disease that is typically marked by aggressive behavior and limited survival.

BackgroundLittle is known about hospital use of postacute care after surgery and whether it is related to measures of surgical quality.Research designWe used data merged between a national surgery registry, Medicare inpatient claims, the Area Resource File, and the American Hospital Association Annual Survey (2005-2008). Using bivariate and multivariate analyses, we calculated hospital-level, risk-adjusted rates of postacute care use for both inpatient facilities (IF) and home health care (HHC), and examined the association of these rates with hospital quality measures, including mortality, complications, readmissions, and length of stay.ResultsOf 112,620 patients treated at 217 hospitals, 18.6% were discharged to an IF, and 19.9% were discharged with HHC. Even after adjusting for differences in patient and hospital characteristics, hospitals varied widely in their use of both IF (mean, 20.3%; range, 2.7%-39.7%) and HHC (mean, 22.3%; range, 3.1%-57.8%). A hospital's risk-adjusted postoperative mortality rate or complication rate was not significantly associated with its use of postacute care, but higher 30-day readmission rates were associated with higher use of IF (24.1% vs. 21.2%, P=0.03). Hospitals with longer average length of stay used IF less frequently (19.4% vs. 24.4%, P

ObjectiveTo examine the validity of hybrid quality measures that use both clinical registry and administrative claims data, capitalizing on the strengths of each data source.BackgroundPrevious studies demonstrate substantial disagreement between clinical registry and administrative claims data on the occurrence of postoperative complications. Clinical data have greater validity than claims data for quality measurement but can be burdensome for hospitals to collect.MethodsAmerican College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program records were linked to Medicare inpatient claims (2005-2008). National Quality Forum-endorsed risk-adjusted measures of 30-day postoperative complications or death assessed hospital quality for patients undergoing colectomy, lower extremity bypass, or all surgical procedures. Measures use hierarchical multivariable logistic regression to identify statistical outliers. Measures were applied using clinical data, claims data, or a hybrid of both data sources. Kappa statistics assessed agreement on determinations of hospital quality.ResultsA total of 111,984 patients participated from 206 hospitals. Agreement on hospital quality between clinical and claims data was poor. Hybrid models using claims data to risk-adjust complications identified by clinical data had moderate agreement with all clinical data models, whereas hybrid models using clinical data to risk-adjust complications identified by claims data had routinely poor agreement with all clinical data models.ConclusionsAssessments of hospital quality differ substantially when using clinical registry versus administrative claims data. A hybrid approach using claims data for risk adjustment and clinical data for complications may be a valid alternative with lower data collection burden. For quality measures focused on postoperative complications to be meaningful, such policies should require, at a minimum, collection of clinical outcomes data.

ImportanceThe Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services include patient experience as a core component of its Value-Based Purchasing program, which ties financial incentives to hospital performance on a range of quality measures. However, it remains unclear whether patient satisfaction is an accurate marker of high-quality surgical care.ObjectiveTo determine whether hospital performance on a patient satisfaction survey is associated with objective measures of surgical quality.Design, setting, and participantsRetrospective observational study of participating American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Project (ACS NSQIP) hospitals. We used data from a linked database of Medicare inpatient claims, ACS NSQIP, the American Hospital Association annual survey, and Hospital Compare from December 2, 2004, through December 31, 2008. A total of 103 866 patients older than 65 years undergoing inpatient surgery were included. Hospitals were grouped by quartile based on their performance on the Hospital Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems survey. Controlling for preoperative risk factors, we created hierarchical logistic regression models to predict the occurrence of adverse postoperative outcomes based on a hospital's patient satisfaction scores.Main outcomes and measuresThirty-day postoperative mortality, major and minor complications, failure to rescue, and hospital readmission.ResultsOf the 180 hospitals, the overall mean patient satisfaction score was 68.0% (first quartile mean, 58.7%; fourth quartile mean, 76.7%). Compared with patients treated at hospitals in the lowest quartile, those at the highest quartile had significantly lower risk-adjusted odds of death (odds ratio = 0.85; 95% CI, 0.73-0.99), failure to rescue (odds ratio = 0.82; 95% CI, 0.70-0.96), and minor complication (odds ratio = 0.87; 95% CI, 0.75-0.99). This translated to relative risk reductions of 11.1% (P = .04), 12.6% (P = .02), and 11.5% (P = .04), respectively. No significant relationship was noted between patient satisfaction and either major complication or hospital readmission.Conclusions and relevanceUsing a national sample of hospitals, we demonstrated a significant association between patient satisfaction scores and several objective measures of surgical quality. Our findings suggest that payment policies that incentivize better patient experience do not require hospitals to sacrifice performance on other quality measures.

BackgroundThe use of post-acute care is common among the elderly and accounts for $62 billion in annual Medicare expenditures. However, little is known about post-acute care use after surgery.Study designData were merged between the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (ACS-NSQIP) and Medicare claims for 2005 to 2008. Post-acute care use, including skilled nursing facilities (SNF), inpatient rehabilitation facilities (IRF), and home health care (HHC) were analyzed for 3 operations: colectomy, pancreatectomy, and open abdominal aortic aneurysm repair. Controlling for both preoperative risk factors and the occurrence of postoperative complications, we used multinomial logistic regression to estimate the odds of use for each type of post-acute care after elective surgery compared with home discharge.ResultsPost-acute care was used frequently for patients undergoing colectomy (40.0%; total n=10,932), pancreatectomy (46.0%; total n=2,144), and open abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) repair (44.9%; total n=1,736). Home health was the most frequently reported post-acute care service for each operation (range 23.2% to 31.5%) followed by SNF (range 12.0% to 15.0%), and then by IRF (range 2.5% to 5.4%). The majority of patients with at least 1 inpatient complication were discharged to post-acute care (range 58.6% for open AAA repair to 64.4% for colectomy). In multivariable analysis, specific preoperative risk factors, including advanced age, poor functional status, and inpatient complications were significantly associated with increased risk-adjusted odds of discharge to post-acute care for each operation studied.ConclusionsAmong elderly patients, post-acute care use is frequent after surgery and is significantly associated with several preoperative risk factors and postoperative inpatient complications. Further work is needed to ensure that post-acute care services are used appropriately and cost-effectively.

BackgroundWith the growing number of survivors of breast cancer outpacing the capacity of oncology providers, there is pressure to transition patients back to primary care. Primary care providers (PCPs) working in safety-net settings may have less experience treating survivors, and little is known about their knowledge and views on survivorship care. The current study was performed to determine the knowledge, attitudes, and confidence of PCPs in the safety net at delivering care to survivors of breast cancer.MethodsA modified version of the National Cancer Institute's Survey of Physician Attitudes Regarding Care of Cancer Survivors was given to providers at 2 county hospitals and 5 associated clinics (59 providers). Focus groups were held to understand barriers to survivorship care.ResultsAlthough the majority of providers believed PCPs have the skills necessary to provide cancer-related follow-up, the vast majority were not comfortable providing these services themselves. Providers were adherent to American Society of Clinical Oncology recommendations for mammography (98%) and physical examination (87%); less than one-third were guideline-concordant for laboratory testing and only 6 providers (10%) met all recommendations. PCPs universally requested additional training on clinical guidelines and the provision of written survivorship care plans before transfer. Concerns voiced in qualitative sessions included unfamiliarity with the management of endocrine therapy and confusion regarding who would be responsible for certain aspects of care.ConclusionsSafety-net providers currently lack knowledge of and confidence in providing survivorship care to patients with breast cancer. Opportunities exist for additional training in evidence-based guidelines and improved coordination of care between PCPs and oncology specialists.

Simple Summary: Colorectal cancer is a common cancer diagnosis, with many patients suffering from metastatic disease. Unfortunately, the prognosis for these patients remains grim, but there is a cohort in whom surgery remains a viable option, with the potential for a cure. The management of this cohort of patients is complex and requires the guidance of a dedicated hepatobiliary surgeon. There also remains a deep interplay between perioperative and operative decisions, which ultimately need tailoring to each individual patient. In this review, we aim to define these key perioperative and operative considerations in the contemporary management of colorectal liver metastasis. Colorectal cancer is the third most common cancer in the United States and the second most common cause of cancer-related death. Approximately 20–30% of patients will develop hepatic metastasis in the form of synchronous or metachronous disease. The treatment of colorectal liver metastasis (CRLM) has evolved into a multidisciplinary approach, with chemotherapy and a variety of locoregional treatments, such as ablation and portal vein embolization, playing a crucial role. However, resection remains a core tenet of management, serving as the gold standard for a curative-intent therapy. As such, the input of a dedicated hepatobiliary surgeon is paramount for appropriate patient selection and choice of surgical approach, as significant advances in the field have made management decisions extremely nuanced and complex. We herein aim to review the contemporary surgical management of colorectal liver metastasis with respect to both perioperative and operative considerations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]