Search

Background: Esophagectomy in locally advanced esophageal adenocarcinoma is challenging and carries risk. The value of esophagectomy in locally advanced esophageal adenocarcinoma is not well-defined., Study Design: The National Cancer Database was used to identify patients with cT4 esophageal adenocarcinoma from 2004 to 2020. Multivariable regression was used to identify factors associated with use of esophagectomy. Cox modeling was used to identify factors associated with all-cause mortality. Patients undergoing esophagectomy were 1:1 propensity score-matched to patients treated nonsurgically. Kaplan-Meier analysis was used to compare 5-year overall survival (OS)., Results: A total of 3,703 patients met inclusion criteria. Of those, 541 (15%) underwent esophagectomy, and 3,162 (85%) did not. Age 65 years or less (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 1.69, 95% CI 1.33 to 2.14), White race (aOR 2.98, 95% CI 2.24 to 3.96), treatment in academic centers (aOR 1.64, 95% CI 1.33 to 2.02), private insurance (aOR 1.88, 95% CI 1.50 to 2.36), and tumors less than 6 cm (aOR 1.86, 95% CI 1.44 to 2.40) were associated with use of esophagectomy. Government of lack of insurance (hazard ratio [HR] 1.23, 95% CI 1.12 to 1.35), income <$46,000 (HR 1.11, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.20), treatment in nonacademic centers (HR 1.16, 95% CI 1.07 to 1.25), Charlson-Deyo Comorbidity Index 1 or more (HR 1.22, 95% CI 1.12 to 1.32), and tumors 6 cm or more (HR 1.20, 95% CI 1.09 to 1.32) were associated with risk of all-cause mortality. Esophagectomy (HR 0.50, 95% CI 0.44 to 0.56) and systemic therapy (HR 0.40, 95% CI 0.37 to 0.43) were associated with decreased risk of all-cause mortality. Patients undergoing esophagectomy had higher rates of 5-year OS (27.4% vs 13.2%, p < 0.0001) and longer median OS (24.71 vs 10.09 months, p < 0.0001). Among cT4b patients, those who underwent esophagectomy had higher rates of 5-year OS (24.5% vs 12.3%, p < 0.0001) and longer median OS (25.53 vs 11.01 months, p < 0.0001)., Conclusions: In cT4 esophageal adenocarcinoma, esophagectomy is associated with improved rates of 5-year OS compared with nonsurgical treatment., (Copyright © 2024 by the American College of Surgeons. Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Prior studies evaluating the efficacy of local excision compared to radical resection in the treatment of rectal adenocarcinoma lacked sufficient power to identify differences in outcomes for patients with cT2 disease but low-risk histopathology. We compared the outcomes of local excision and radical resection for low-risk histopathology and high-risk histology of patients with cT2N0M0 rectal adenocarcinoma to assess their outcomes., Methods: We queried the National Cancer Database for patients presenting with cT2N0M0 rectal adenocarcinoma between 2004 and 2019 and categorized them as low-risk histopathology or high-risk histology. We used the Cox proportional hazards model to identify factors associated with the risk of all-cause mortality. We 1:1 propensity-matched patients who underwent local excision to patients who underwent radical resection and used the Kaplan-Meier method to compare overall survival for matched cohorts., Results: Of the 4,446 patients selected, we classified 1,206 (27%) as high-risk histology and 3,240 (73%) as low-risk histopathology. Among the patients with high-risk histology, 121 (10%) underwent local excision and 1,085 (90%) underwent radical resection. Among the patients with low-risk histopathology, 340 (10%) underwent local excision and 2,900 (90%) radical resections. Whereas radical resection was associated with decreased risk of all-cause mortality and increased overall survival for patients with high-risk histology, it was not for patients with low-risk histopathology., Conclusion: The overall survival of patients with low-risk histopathology with cT2N0M0 rectal adenocarcinoma who undergo local excision is similar to those of patients with low-risk histopathology who undergo radical resection, suggesting local excision is a reasonable approach for these patients. In contrast, radical resection provides a significant survival advantage for patients with high-risk histology and should remain their treatment of choice., (Copyright © 2023. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Background: Pretreatment clinical staging is used to decide the course of treatment in early-stage esophageal cancer. Few studies assess the effect of inaccurate clinical staging on oncologic outcomes., Methods: We queried the National Cancer Database to identify patients undergoing esophagectomy for clinical stage cT1bN0 esophageal carcinoma between 2010 and 2019. Patients were categorized as being upstaged if, on final pathology, they had histopathologic disease that would have warranted treatment with neoadjuvant therapy. The textbook oncologic outcome was defined as margin-negative resection, 15 lymph nodes examined, a hospital stay of <21 days, no unplanned 30-day readmission or mortality, and stage-appropriate use of neoadjuvant therapy., Results: In total, 916 patients met inclusion criteria; 378 (41.2%) had a pathologic stage that differed from their pretreatment clinical stage. By multivariable regression, factors associated upstaging included: presentation between 2015 and 2019 (odds ratio 1.92 95% confidence interval [1.19, 3.13]), delay to esophagectomy of >30 days (odds ratio 2.38 95% confidence interval [1.13, 5.57]), larger tumor size (>2 cm relative to <2 cm, odds ratio 2.73 95% confidence interval [1.72, 4.39]), and poorly differentiated histology (odds ratio 2.79 95% confidence interval [1.75, 4.49]). The rate of textbook oncologic outcome assuming reliable clinical staging was 43.8%; accounting for upstaging, the rate of textbook oncologic outcome was 22.5% (P < .001)., Conclusion: In patients with cT1bN0 esophageal cancer, tumor size and histology are associated with the risk of inaccurate pretreatment clinical staging. Inaccuracies in clinical staging impact the rate at which providers achieve optimal oncologic outcomes., (Copyright © 2023. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Background: The efficacy of local excision (transduodenal or endoscopic ampullectomy) in treating early-stage ampullary cancer has not been well defined., Study Design: We queried the National Cancer Database to identify patients undergoing either local tumor excision or radical resection for early-stage (cTis-T2, N0, M0) ampullary adenocarcinoma between 2004 and 2018. Cox modeling was used to identify factors associated with overall survival. Patients undergoing local excision were then 1:1 propensity score-matched for demographics, hospital level, and histopathological factors to those undergoing radical resection. The Kaplan-Meier method was used to compare overall survival (OS) profiles for matched cohorts., Results: A total of 1,544 patients met inclusion criteria. A total of 218 (14%) underwent local tumor excision, and 1,326 (86%) radical resection. On propensity score matching, 218 patients undergoing local excision were successfully matched to 218 patients undergoing radical resection. On comparison of matched cohorts, those undergoing local excision had lower rate of margin-negative (R0) resection (85.1% vs 99%, p < 0.001) and lower median lymph node count (0 vs 13, p < 0.001) but had significantly shorter length of initial hospitalization (median days: 1 vs 10 days, p < 0.001), lower rate of 30-day readmission (3.3% vs 12.0%, p = 0.001), and lower rate of 30-day mortality (1.8% vs 6.5%, p = 0.016) than patients undergoing radical resection. There was no statistically significant difference in OS between the matched cohorts (46.9% vs 52.0%, p = 0.46)., Conclusions: In patients presenting with early-stage ampullary adenocarcinoma, local tumor excision is associated with higher rate of R1 resection but accelerated postprocedure recovery and patterns of OS comparable with those after radical resection., (Copyright © 2023 by the American College of Surgeons. Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Studies evaluating endoscopic resection for early-stage (cT1N0M0) esophageal adenocarcinoma include small numbers of patients with T1b tumors. The role of endoscopic resection in esophageal adenocarcinoma remains incompletely defined., Methods: We queried the National Cancer Database to identify patients presenting with esophageal adenocarcinoma between 2010 and 2017. Those treated with neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy and endoscopic ablation were excluded. Patients undergoing endoscopic resection for cT1a and cT1b tumors were separately 1:1 propensity matched for relevant demographic and tumor factors to those undergoing esophagectomy for disease of like clinical stage. The Kaplan-Meier method was used to compare 5-year overall survival for matched cohorts., Results: A total of 3,157 patients met the inclusion criteria. Of these patients, 2,024 (64.1%) had cT1a and 1133 (35.9%) had cT1b disease. Among those with cT1a tumors, 461 (22.8%) underwent esophagectomy, 1,357 (67.0%) endoscopic resection, and 206 (10.2%) treatment with chemoradiotherapy alone. Among those with cT1b tumors, 649 (57.3%) underwent esophagectomy, 293 (25.9%) endoscopic resection, and 191 (16.8%) chemoradiotherapy. On unadjusted comparison, patients treated for esophageal adenocarcinoma with chemoradiotherapy had a lower rate of overall survival than those treated with endoscopic resection or esophagectomy (26.1% vs 73.1% vs 75.5%, P < .001). On comparison of matched cohorts, patients undergoing endoscopic resection for cT1b tumors demonstrated lower rates of overall survival than those undergoing esophagectomy (60.6% vs 74.1%, P = .0013), whereas those undergoing endoscopic resection for cT1a tumors demonstrated rates of overall survival statistically similar to those undergoing esophagectomy (77.8% vs 80.2%, P = .75)., Conclusion: Esophagectomy is associated with improved overall survival relative to endoscopic resection in patients presenting with cT1bN0M0 but not in those with cT1a esophageal adenocarcinoma., (Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Background: Prior studies evaluating the safety and efficacy of local excision relative to surgical resection in early-stage rectal adenocarcinoma have primarily included low rectal cancers treated with abdominoperineal resection as control comparison cohorts. The role of local excision in early-stage rectal adenocarcinoma is incompletely defined., Methods: We queried the National Cancer Database to identify patients with cT1 N0 M0 rectal adenocarcinoma between 2004 and 2019. Patients undergoing abdominoperineal resection were excluded. Multivariable regression was used to identify factors associated with use of local excision instead of low anterior resection. Patients undergoing local excision were propensity score matched for age, sex, demographic characteristics, Charlson-Deyo comorbidity class score, and tumor grade and size to those undergoing low anterior resection. Short-term clinical outcomes and 5-year overall survival for matched cohorts were compared by standard methods., Results: A total of 5,693 patients met inclusion criteria; 1,973 patients underwent local excision and 3,720 low anterior resection. Age (adjusted odds ratio 1.26; 95% confidence interval, 1.17-1.37), tumor histology (poorly differentiated histology: adjusted odds ratio 0.66; 95% confidence interval, 0.51-0.86), and size (>4 cm: adjusted odds ratio 0.20; 95% confidence interval, 0.16-0.25) were associated with choice of intervention. On comparison of matched cohorts, patients undergoing LE demonstrated shorter hospital stay (2.4 ±9.8 vs 5.6 ±8.1 days; P < .001) and lower readmission rate (4% vs 7%; P = .002) but higher margin-positive resection rates (8% vs 2%; P < .001). Overall survival profiles for patients undergoing local excision were comparable with those for low anterior resection., Conclusion: In patients with cT1 N0 M0 rectal adenocarcinoma, local excision is associated with a higher margin-positive resection rate than low anterior resection but affords accelerated postprocedure recovery and comparable rates of overall survival., (Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Background and Objectives: Few empiric studies evaluate the effects of regionalization on pancreatic cancer care., Methods: We queried the National Cancer Database to identify patients undergoing pancreaticoduodenectomy for clinical stage I/II pancreatic adenocarcinoma between 2006 and 2015. Facilities were categorized by annual pancreatectomy volume. Textbook oncologic outcome was defined as a margin negative resection, appropriate lymph node assessment, no prolonged hospitalization, no 30-day readmission, no 90-day mortality, and timely receipt of adjuvant chemotherapy. Multivariable regression adjusted for comorbid disease, pathologic stage, and facility characteristics was used to evaluate the relationship between facility volume and textbook outcome., Results: Sixteen thousand six hundred and two patients underwent pancreaticoduodenectomy; 3566 (21.5%) had a textbook outcome. Operations performed at high volume centers increased each year (45.8% in 2006 to 64.2% in 2015, p < 0.001) as did textbook outcome rates (14.3%-26.2%, p < 0.001). Surgical volume was associated with textbook outcome. High volume centers demonstrated higher unadjusted rates of textbook outcome (25.4% vs. 11.8% p < 0.01) and increased adjusted odds of textbook outcome relative to low volume centers (odds ratio: 2.39, [2.02, 2.85], p < 0.001). Textbook outcome was associated with improved overall survival independent of volume., Conclusions: Regionalization of care for pancreaticoduodenectomy to high volume centers is ongoing and is associated with improved quality of care., (© 2021 Wiley Periodicals LLC.)