Search

Background: Little is known about surgery for malignancy among people experiencing homelessness (PEH). Poor healthcare access may lead to delayed diagnosis and need for unplanned surgery. This study aimed to (1) characterize access to care among PEH, (2) evaluate postoperative outcomes, and (3) assess costs associated with surgery for malignancy among PEH., Methods: This was a retrospective cohort study of patients in the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project (HCUP) who underwent surgery in Florida, New York, or Massachusetts for gastrointestinal or lung cancer from 2016 to 2017. PEH were identified using HCUP's "Homeless" variable and ICD-10 code Z59. Multivariable regression models controlling patient and hospital variables evaluated associations between homelessness and postoperative morbidity, length of stay (LOS), 30-day readmission, and hospitalization costs., Results: Of 67,034 patients at 566 hospitals, 98 (0.2%) were PEH. Most PEH (44.9%) underwent surgery for colorectal cancer. PEH more frequently underwent unplanned surgery than housed patients (65.3% vs 23.7%, odds ratio (OR) 5.17, 95% confidence interval (CI) 3.00-8.92) and less often were treated at cancer centers (66.0% vs 76.2%, p=0.02). Morbidity rates were similar between groups (20.4% vs 14.5%, p=0.10). However, PEH demonstrated higher odds of facility discharge (OR 5.89, 95% CI 3.50-9.78) and readmission (OR 1.81, 95% CI 1.07-3.05) as well as 67.7% longer adjusted LOS (95% CI 42.0-98.2%). Adjusted costs were 32.7% higher (95% CI 14.5-53.9%) among PEH., Conclusions: PEH demonstrated increased odds of unplanned surgery, longer LOS, and increased costs. These results underscore a need for improved access to oncologic care for PEH., (© 2023. Society of Surgical Oncology.)

Importance: The COVID-19 pandemic created challenges to the evaluation and treatment of cancer, and abrupt resource diversion toward patients with COVID-19 put cancer treatment on hold for many patients. Previous reports have shown substantial declines in cancer screening and diagnoses in 2020; however, the extent to which the delivery of cancer care was altered remains unclear., Objective: To assess alterations in cancer treatment in the US during the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic., Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective cohort study used data from the National Cancer Database (NCDB) on patients older than 18 years with newly diagnosed cancer from January 1, 2018, to December 31, 2020., Main Outcomes and Measures: The main outcomes were accessibility (time to treatment, travel distance, and multi-institutional care), availability (proportional changes in cancer treatment between years), and utilization (reductions by treatment modality, hospital type) of cancer treatment in 2020 compared with 2018 to 2019. Autoregressive models forecasted expected findings for 2020 based on observations from prior years., Results: Of 1 229 654 patients identified in the NCDB in 2020, 1 074 225 were treated for cancer, representing a 16.8% reduction from what was expected. Patients were predominately female (53.8%), with a median age of 66 years (IQR, 57-74 years), similar to demographics in 2018 and 2019. Median time between diagnosis and treatment was 26 days (IQR, 0-36 days) in 2020, and median travel distance for care was 11.1 miles (IQR, 5.0-25.3 miles), similar to 2018 and 2019. In 2020, fewer patients traveled longer distances (20.2% reduction of patients traveling >35 miles). The proportions of patients treated with chemotherapy (32.0%), radiation (29.5%), and surgery (57.1%) were similar to those in 2018 and 2019. Overall, 146 805 fewer patients than expected underwent surgery, 80 480 fewer received radiation, and 68 014 fewer received chemotherapy. Academic hospitals experienced the greatest reduction in cancer surgery and treatment, with a decrease of approximately 484 patients (-19.0%) per hospital compared with 99 patients (-12.6%) at community hospitals and 110 patients (-12.8%) at integrated networks., Conclusions and Relevance: This study found that among patients diagnosed with cancer in 2020, access and availability of treatment remained intact; however, reductions in treated patients varied across treatment modalities and were greater at academic hospitals than at community hospitals and integrated networks compared with expected values. These results suggest the resilience of cancer service lines and frame the economic losses from reductions in cancer treatment during the pandemic.

Importance: Venous thromboembolism (VTE) represents a major source of preventable morbidity and mortality and is a leading cause of death in the US after cancer surgery. Previous research demonstrated variability in VTE chemoprophylaxis prescribing, although it is unknown how these rates compare with performance in the Veterans Health Administration (VHA)., Objective: To determine VTE rates after cancer surgery, as well as rates of inpatient and outpatient (posthospital discharge) chemoprophylaxis adherence within the VHA., Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective cohort study within 101 hospitals of the VHA health system included patients aged 41 years or older without preexisting bleeding disorders or anticoagulation usage who underwent surgical treatment for cancer with general surgery, thoracic surgery, or urology between January 1, 2015, and December 31, 2022. The VHA Corporate Data Warehouse, Pharmacy Benefits Management database, and the Veterans Affairs Surgical Quality Improvement Program database were used to identify eligible patients. Data analysis was conducted between January 2022 and July 2023., Exposures: Inpatient surgery for cancer with general surgery, thoracic surgery, or urology., Main Outcomes and Measures: Rates of postoperative VTE events within 30 days of surgery and VTE chemoprophylaxis adherence were determined. Multivariable Poisson regression was used to determine incidence-rate ratios of inpatient and postdischarge chemoprophylaxis adherence by surgical specialty., Results: Overall, 30 039 veterans (median [IQR] age, 67 [62-71] years; 29 386 men [97.8%]; 7771 African American or Black patients [25.9%]) who underwent surgery for cancer and were at highest risk for VTE were included. The overall postoperative VTE rate was 1.3% (385 patients) with 199 patients (0.7%) receiving a diagnosis during inpatient hospitalization and 186 patients (0.6%) receiving a diagnosis postdischarge. Inpatient chemoprophylaxis was ordered for 24 139 patients (80.4%). Inpatient chemoprophylaxis ordering rates were highest for patients who underwent procedures with general surgery (10 102 of 10 301 patients [98.1%]) and lowest for patients who underwent procedures with urology (11 471 of 17 089 patients [67.1%]). Overall, 3142 patients (10.5%) received postdischarge chemoprophylaxis, with notable variation by specialty., Conclusions and Relevance: These findings indicate the overall VTE rate after cancer surgery within the VHA is low, VHA inpatient chemoprophylaxis rates are high, and postdischarge VTE chemoprophylaxis prescribing is similar to that of non-VHA health systems. Specialty and procedure variation exists for chemoprophylaxis and may be justified given the low risks of overall and postdischarge VTE.

Even though surgery has remained a key component within multi-disciplinary cancer care, the expectations have changed. Instead of serving as a modality to free a patient of a mass at all means and at the risk of high morbidity, modern cancer surgery is expected to provide adequate tumor clearance with lowest invasiveness. This review summarizes the evidence on quality assurance in surgical oncology and gives a comprehensive overview of quality improvement tools., (© 2022 The Authors. Journal of Surgical Oncology published by Wiley Periodicals LLC.)

Background: Post-discharge venous thromboembolism (VTE) chemoprophylaxis decreases VTEs following cancer surgery, however identifying high-risk patients remains difficult. Our objectives were to (1) identify factors available at hospital discharge associated with post-discharge VTE following hepatectomy for malignancy and (2) develop and validate a post-discharge VTE risk calculator to evaluate patient-specific risk., Methods: Patients who underwent hepatectomy for malignancy from 2014 to 2017 were identified from the ACS NSQIP hepatectomy procedure targeted module. Multivariable logistic regression identified factors associated with post-discharge VTE. A post-discharge VTE risk calculator was constructed, and predicted probabilities of post-discharge VTE were calculated., Results: Among 11 172 patients, 95 (0.9%) developed post-discharge VTE. Post-discharge VTE was associated with obese BMI (OR 2.29 vs. normal BMI [95%CI 1.31-3.99]), right hepatectomy/trisegmentectomy (OR 1.63 vs. partial/wedge [95%CI 1.04-2.57]), and several inpatient postoperative complications: renal insufficiency (OR 5.29 [95%CI 1.99-14.07]), transfusion (OR 1.77 [95%CI 1.12-2.80]), non-operative procedural intervention (OR 2.97 [95%CI 1.81-4.86]), and post-hepatectomy liver failure (OR 2.22 [95%CI 1.21-4.08]). Post-discharge VTE risk ranged from 0.3% to 30.2%. Twenty iterations of 10-fold cross validation identified internal validity., Conclusions: Risk factors from all phases of care, including inpatient complications, are associated with post-discharge VTE following hepatectomy. Identifying high-risk patients may allow for personalized risk-based post-discharge chemoprophylaxis prescribing., (Copyright © 2020 International Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Association Inc. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Importance: Primary care clinicians, who are increasingly responsible for caring for the growing population of cancer survivors, may be unfamiliar with appropriate cancer surveillance strategies. Clinical practice guidelines can inform cancer follow-up care and surveillance testing. Vague recommendations and inconsistencies among guidelines can lead to overuse and underuse of health care resources and have a negative impact on cost and quality of survivorship care., Objective: To examine the specificity and consistency of recommendations for surveillance after active treatment across cancer guidelines., Design, Setting, and Participants: Retrospective cross-sectional analysis of national cancer guidelines from North America and Europe published since 2010 addressing posttreatment care for survivors of the 9 most common cancers. We categorized surveillance modalities into history and physical examinations, tumor markers, diagnostic procedures (eg, colonoscopy), and imaging. Within each guideline, we classified individual recommendations into 5 categories: (1) risk-based recommendation, (2) recommendation for surveillance, (3) addressed but no clear recommendation, (4) recommendation against surveillance, or (5) cases in which surveillance was not addressed. We reviewed each surveillance recommendation for frequency and a stop date, evaluated consistency among guidelines, and analyzed associations between the organizations proposing the guidelines and recommendation characteristics., Main Outcomes and Measures: Description of guideline recommendations for cancer surveillance., Results: We identified 41 guidelines published between January 1, 2010, and March 1, 2016. Eighty-five percent of guidelines (35) were from professional organizations. Ambiguous recommendations (ie, modality not discussed or discussed without a clear recommendation) were present in 83% of guidelines (34), and 44% (18) recommended against at least 1 test. European guidelines were more likely than North American guidelines to contain ambiguous recommendations (100% vs 68%; P < .01). Recommendations commonly specified testing frequency (from 88% [14 of 16] for tumor markers to 92% [24 of 26] for procedures and/or imaging) but infrequently provided a definitive stop time. Cross-sectional imaging recommendations varied among guidelines for each cancer. For example, among breast cancer guidelines, surveillance computed tomographic scans were recommended against in 2, discussed without a clear recommendation in 1, and not addressed in 3 guidelines., Conclusions and Relevance: Guidelines addressing the care of cancer survivors have low specificity and consistency. As guidelines continue to be revised, developers should clarify recommendations with simple, nonambiguous, definitive language for or against the use of specific tests to optimize care quality and resource utilization.

Objective: To evaluate differences in hospital structural quality characteristics and assess the association between national publicly reported quality indicators and cancer center accreditation status., Background: Cancer center accreditation and public reporting are 2 approaches available to help guide patients with cancer to high-quality hospitals. It is unknown whether hospital performance on these measures differs by cancer accreditation., Methods: Data from Medicare's Hospital Compare and the American Hospital Association were merged. Hospitals were categorized into 3 mutually exclusive groups: National Cancer Institute-Designated Cancer Centers (NCI-CCs), Commission on Cancer (CoC) centers, and "nonaccredited" hospitals. Performance was assessed on the basis of structural, processes-of-care, patient-reported experiences, costs, and outcomes., Results: A total of 3563 hospitals (56 NCI-CCs, 1112 CoC centers, and 2395 nonaccredited hospitals) were eligible for analysis. Cancer centers (NCI-CCs and CoC centers) were more likely larger, higher volume teaching hospitals with additional services and specialists than nonaccredited hospitals (P < 0.001). Cancer centers performed better on 3 of 4 process measures, 8 of 10 patient-reported experience measures, and Medicare spending per beneficiary than nonaccredited hospitals. NCI-CCs performed worse than both CoC centers and nonaccredited hospitals on 8 of 10 outcome measures. Similarly, CoC centers performed worse than nonaccredited hospitals on 5 measures. For example, 35% of NCI-CCs, 13.5% of CoC centers, and 3.5% of nonaccredited hospitals were poor performers for serious complications., Conclusions: Accredited cancer centers performed better on most process and patient experience measures but showed worse performance on most outcome measures. These discordant findings emphasize the need to focus on oncology-specific measurement strategies.

Background: Interest in comparing hospital surgical quality continues to increase, particularly with respect to examining certain hospital designations such as National Cancer Institute-designated Cancer Centers (NCI-CC). Our objectives were to compare patients, surgical complexity, and risk-adjusted 30-day outcomes following major cancer surgery at NCI-CC versus non-NCI centers., Methods: From the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program, patients were identified who underwent colorectal, pancreatic, or esophagogastric resection for cancer (2007-2011). Regression methods were used to evaluate characteristics associated with undergoing treatment at NCI-CCs and surgical-complexity-adjusted 30-day morbidity, mortality, and prolonged length-of-stay at NCI-CC versus non-NCI centers., Results: NCI-CCs performed 20.2% of colorectal (10,555/52,265), 53.5% of pancreatic (6335/11,838), and 49.8% of esophagogastric (1596/3208) operations for cancer. NCI-CCs were more likely to treat patients who were younger, white, and with fewer comorbidities, but were more likely to perform more complex procedures including synchronous liver resection (eg, colorectal), adjacent organ resections (rectal cancer), and vascular reconstructions (eg, pancreas) (all P<0.05). NCI-CCs had a lower mortality rate for colorectal surgery only (1.2% vs. 1.9%) and increased rates of superficial surgical site infection (SSI) for colorectal (9.8% vs. 7.1%) and pancreatic (10.7% vs. 8.8%) surgery. No differences existed for the remaining complications by NCI-CC designation status. NCI-CCs were distributed throughout hospital quality rankings for all procedures and complications assessed., Conclusions: NCI-CCs treated younger, healthier patients, but performed more complex procedures. Patients treated at NCI-CCs had a lower risk of mortality for colorectal resection, but morbidity was similar to non-NCI centers. Comparison of cancer surgery hospital quality is feasible and should adjust for differences in patient demographics, comorbidities, and surgical complexity.

For most cancers, surgical therapy offers the only hope for cure. Nevertheless, evidence suggests wide variation in cancer care, and therefore it is imperative to ensure that high standards of care are being met. Few initiatives currently exist that are focused on cancer care quality, and there is no program measuring short-term surgical outcomes following cancer surgery. Improvements in care will likely come from performance programs that provide reliable, robust, and actionable information in a timely manner such that performance feedback can occur more frequently and at earlier stages in the treatment and disease process., (Copyright © 2012 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: To (1) define the frequency of overall and postdischarge venous thromboembolism (VTE) after cancer surgery, (2) identify VTE risk for individual cancer operations, and (3) assess mortality rates in patients who experienced a VTE., Summary and Background Data: Cancer is a known risk factor for VTE but less is known about VTE risk after specific cancer operations. Moreover, most cancer patients routinely receive VTE prophylaxis postoperatively while in the hospital, but few receive prolonged prophylaxis despite strong evidence it reduces postdischarge events., Methods: From 211 ACS NSQIP hospitals, 44,656 patients undergoing surgery for 9 cancers were identified (2006-2008). The frequency of VTE within 30-days of surgery was evaluated by cancer site and categorized as occurring before or after discharge. Multivariable logistic regression models were constructed to assess risk factors associated with VTE., Results: VTE occurred in 1.6% of all patients, most frequently after esophagogastric (4.2%) and hepatopancreaticobiliary (3.6%) surgery. Overall, 33.4% of VTEs occurred postdischarge (from 17.9% for esophagogastric to 100% for endocrine operations). Factors associated with VTE were age (≥65 years), cancer/procedure type, metastatic disease, congestive heart failure, body mass index (BMI; ≥25 kg/m(2)), ascites, thrombocytosis (>400,000 cells/mm(3)), albumin (<3.0 g/dL), and operation duration (>2 hours; all P < 0.001). Overall VTE was significantly more likely after gastrointestinal, lung, prostate, and ovarian/uterine operations (all P < 0.001). In those experiencing a VTE, mortality increased over 6-fold (8.0% vs. 1.3%; P < 0.001)., Conclusion: One-third of VTE events in cancer surgery patients occurred postdischarge. Postoperative VTE was associated with operation type. Routine postdischarge VTE prophylaxis should be considered for high-risk patients.