Search

Background: This study aims to assess the impact of nationwide centralization of surgery on travel distance and travel burden among patients with oesophageal, gastric, and pancreatic cancer according to age in the Netherlands. As centralization of care increases to improve postoperative outcomes, travel distance and experienced burden might increase., Materials and Methods: All patients who underwent surgery between 2006 and 2017 for oesophageal, gastric and pancreatic cancer in the Netherlands were included. Travel distance between patient's home address and hospital of surgery in kilometres was calculated. Questionnaires were used to assess experienced travel burden in a subpopulation (n = 239). Multivariable ordinal logistic regression models were constructed to identify predictors for longer travel distance., Results: Over 23,838 patients were included, in whom median travel distance for surgical care increased for oesophageal cancer (n = 9217) from 18 to 28 km, for gastric cancer (n = 6743) from 9 to 26 km, and for pancreatic cancer (n = 7878) from 18 to 25 km (all p < 0.0001). Multivariable analyses showed an increase in travel distance for all cancer types over time. In general, patients experienced a physical and social burden, and higher financial costs, due to traveling extra kilometres. Patients aged >70 years travelled less often independently (56% versus 68%), as compared to patients aged ≤70 years., Conclusion: With nationwide centralization, travel distance increased for patients undergoing oesophageal, gastric, and pancreatic cancer surgery. Younger patients travelled longer distances and experienced a lower travel burden, as compared to elderly patients. Nevertheless, on a global scale, travel distances in the Netherlands remain limited., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest None declared., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Ltd, BASO ~ The Association for Cancer Surgery, and the European Society of Surgical Oncology. All rights reserved.)

Background: Initial reports of significantly worse outcomes for cancer patients with COVID-19 led to guidelines for triaging surgical cancer treatment. We sought to evaluate the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on oncologic surgical specialty referrals., Methods: We compared referrals to oncologic surgical specialty clinics at an academic tertiary care institution following implementation of stay-at-home orders in California (3/19/20-7/31/20, "COVID") to the same time period the year prior (3/19/19-7/31/19, "Pre-COVID"). The number of appointments, consulted surgical services, insurance types, acuity of diagnoses, and times from referral to first appointment (TRFA) were assessed., Results: The overall number of patients seen in matched time periods decreased by 21.6% from 900 (pre-COVID) to 705 (COVID). Proportions of patients with malignant and suspicious diagnoses, surgical and thoracic oncology visits, and Medicaid insurance differed from comparison groups during the COVID period ( P < .05). Overall median (interquartile range) TRFA decreased from 14 (20) to 12 (19) days ( P = .001) during COVID., Conclusion: After implementation of stay-at-home orders, higher acuity and vulnerable patients were appropriately seen in oncologic surgical specialty clinics. While the long-term effects of decreased clinic visits during COVID remain uncertain, further examination of scheduling practices that led to shorter referral times may identify methods to improve timeliness of care and surgical oncologic outcomes in non-pandemic settings.

Background: Surgical instrument tray reduction attempts to minimize intraoperative inefficiency and processing costs. Previous reduction methods relied on trained observers manually recording instrument use (i.e. human ethnography), and surgeon and/or staff recall, which are imprecise and inherently limited. We aimed to determine the feasibility of radiofrequency identification (RFID)-based intraoperative instrument tracking as an effective means of instrument reduction., Methods: Instrument trays were tagged with unique RFID tags. A RFID reader tracked instruments passing near RFID antennas during 15 breast operations performed by a single surgeon; ethnography was performed concurrently. Instruments without recorded use were eliminated, and 10 additional cases were performed utilizing the reduced tray. Logistic regression was used to estimate odds of instrument use across cases. Cohen's Kappa estimated agreement between RFID and ethnography., Results: Over 15 cases, 37 unique instruments were used (median 23 instruments/case). A mean 0.64 (median = 0, range = 0-3) new instruments were added per case; odds of instrument use did not change between cases (OR = 1.02, 95%CI 1.00-1.05). Over 15 cases, all instruments marked as used by ethnography were recorded by RFID tracking; 7 RFID-tracked instruments were never recorded by ethnography. Tray size was reduced 40%. None of the 25 eliminated instruments were required in 10 subsequent cases. Cohen's Kappa comparing RFID data and ethnography over all cases was 0.82 (95%CI 0.79-0.86), indicating near perfect agreement between methodologies., Conclusions: Intraoperative RFID instrument tracking is a feasible, data-driven method for surgical tray reduction. Overall, RFID tracking represents a scalable, systematic, and efficient method of optimizing instrument supply across procedures., (Copyright © 2021. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Background: The COVID crisis hit during the interview season for the Complex General Surgical Oncology (CGSO) fellowship. With minimal time to adapt, all programs transitioned to virtual interviews. Here we describe the experience of both program directors (PDs) and candidates with virtual interviews, and provide guidelines for implementation based on the results., Methods: Surveys regarding interview day specifics and perceptions were created for CGSO fellowship PDs and candidates. They were distributed at the conclusion of the season, prior to match., Results: Thirty (94%) PDs and 64 (79%) candidates responded. Eighty-three% of PDs and 79% of candidates agreed or strongly agreed that they felt comfortable creating a rank list. If given the choice, 60% of PDs and 45% of candidates would choose virtual interviews over in-person interviews. The majority of candidates found PD overviews, fellows only sessions and pre-interview materials helpful., Conclusion: Overall, the majority of PDs and candidates felt comfortable creating a rank list; however, more PDs preferred virtual interviews for the future. Our results also confirm key components of a virtual interview day., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

The SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) pandemic requires an analysis in the field of oncological surgery, both on the risk of infection, with very relevant clinical consequences, and on the need to generate plans to minimize the impact on possible restrictions on health resources. The AEC is making a proposal for the management of patients with hepatopancreatobiliary (HPB) malignancies in the different pandemic scenarios in order to offer the maximum benefit to patients, minimising the risks of COVID-19 infection, and optimising the healthcare resources available at any time. This requires the coordination of the different treatment options between the departments involved in the management of these patients: medical oncology, radiotherapy oncology, surgery, anaesthesia, radiology, endoscopy department and intensive care. The goal is offer effective treatments, adapted to the available resources, without compromising patients and healthcare professionals safety., (Copyright © 2020 AEC. Publicado por Elsevier España, S.L.U. All rights reserved.)

Abstract: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) was declared a pandemic by the World Health Organization on March 11, 2020. By mid-March, London had emerged as the epicenter in the United Kingdom, accounting for 45% of the COVID-19-related mortality. A cancer COVID-19-free "cold hub," through National Health Service partnership with independent institutions, was established to maintain a throughput of surgical oncology patients with an accessible triage system for oncologic specialties. The high population density, commuter volume, and rising COVID-19 incidence heightened the challenge of segregating a vulnerable population that was already at high risk for surgical morbidity and mortality.The aim of this review is to report the experience of developing a multicenter COVID-19-free cold hub with the aim of providing safe surgery for surgical oncology patients. We discuss the timeline, structure, and infection control policy and suggest practical points that may guide other health care systems.The surgical oncology hub treated 1542 patients between March 1 and July 1, 2020. There were no cases of COVID-19-related mortality in a 30-day follow-up. Key strategies for the restructuring of the cancer service included the following: (1) formation of an accessible referral pathway, (2) creation and structuring of cold hub hospitals, (3) development of protocols for infection control and preoperative testing, (4) rapid reorganization of services based on initial feedback, and (5) clear communication and leadership.It has been shown that a surgical oncology cold hub with an accessible referral system and an effective system of preoperative screening system can minimize COVID-19 transmission, morbidity, and mortality, in a region with heavy disease prevalence. This structure represents a safe, ethical, and viable system that can be replicated in other health care systems., Competing Interests: The authors disclose no conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2021 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Surgery is the cornerstone of gynecological cancer management, but inpatient treatment may expose both patients and healthcare staff to COVID-19 infections. Plans to mitigate the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic have been implemented widely, but few studies have evaluated the effectiveness of these plans in maintaining safe surgical care delivery., Aim: To evaluate the effects of mitigating plans implemented on the delivery of gynecological cancer surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic., Methods: A comparative cohort study of patients treated in a high-volume tertiary gyneoncological centre in the United Kingdom. Prospectively-recorded consecutive operations performed and early peri-operative outcomes during the same calendar periods (January-August) in 2019 and 2020 were compared., Results: In total, 585 operations were performed (296 in 2019; 289 in 2020). There was no significant difference in patient demographics. Types of surgery performed were different (p = 0.034), with fewer cytoreductive surgeries for ovarian cancer and laparoscopic procedures (p = 0.002) in 2020. There was no difference in intra-operative complication rates, critical care admission rates or length of stay. One patient had confirmed COVID-19 infection (0.4%). The 30-day post-operative complication rates were significantly higher in 2020 than in 2019 (58 [20.1%] versus 32 [10.8%]; p = 0.002) for both minor and major complications. This increase, primarily from March 2020 onwards, coincided with the first peak of the COVID-19 pandemic in the UK., Conclusions: Maintaining surgical throughput with meticulous and timely planning is feasible during the COVID-19 pandemic but this was associated with an increase in post-operative complications due to a multitude of reasons., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background and Objectives: Coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has impacted cancer care across India. This study aimed to assess (a) organizational preparedness of hospitals (establishment of screening clinics, COVID-19 wards/committees/intensive care units [ICUs]/operating rooms [ORs]), (b) type of major/minor surgeries performed, and (c) employee well-being (determined by salary deductions, paid leave provisions, and work in-rotation)., Methods: This online questionnaire-based cross-sectional study was distributed to 480 oncosurgeons across India. We used χ 2 statistics to compare responses across geographical areas (COVID-19 lockdown zones and city tiers) and type of organization (government/private, academic/nonacademic, and dedicated/multispecialty hospitals). P < .05 was considered significant., Results: Total of 256 (53.3%) oncologists completed the survey. About 206 hospitals in 85 cities had screening clinics (98.1%), COVID-19 dedicated committees (73.7%), ward (67.3%), ICU's (49%), and OR's (36%). Such preparedness was higher in tier-1 cities, government, academic, and multispecialty hospitals. Dedicated cancer institutes continued major surgeries in all oncological subspecialties particularly in head and neck (P = .006) and colorectal oncology (P = .04). Employee well-being was better in government hospitals., Conclusion: Hospitals have implemented strategies to continue cancer care. Despite limited resources, the significant risk associated and financial setbacks amidst nationwide lockdown, oncosurgeons are striving to prioritize and balance the oncologic needs and safety concerns of cancer patients across the country., (© 2020 Wiley Periodicals LLC.)

Background: Neuro-oncology care is becoming increasingly complex and patients often see multiple specialists. Multidisciplinary clinic (MDC) is a patient-centric option to allow multiple specialists to be involved where patients see multiple providers on the same day., Objective: The objective of this study was to evaluate the role of a neuro-oncology MDC on patient outcomes., Materials and Methods: Retrospective study was performed on consecutive patients who received radiosurgery for central nervous system (CNS) disease. We evaluated patients 2 years before and 2 years after the implementation of a MDC., Results: A total of 351 patients were analyzed, 163 patients before MDC and 188 after implementation of MDC. Before MDC the median follow-up was dependent on which department ordered follow-up radiographic imaging. This discrepancy decreased after the MDC. Overall survival for patients with CNS metastatic disease improved in the MDC cohort (median survival of 248 before MDC and 315 d after, P<0.027)., Conclusion: We found that neuro-oncology MDC improved follow-up across disciplines and improved overall survival for patients with CNS metastatic disease.

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic has caused a global health emergency and affected the resources in both the public and private health sectors significantly. The present study aims to assess the impact of the pandemic on the services by the department in the first 3 months since the first COVID case in the region., Methods: The study period was from 16 March to 15 June 2020. We queried the database for data on site of the tumor, diagnosis, stage, tumor board decisions and planning, surgical procedures, adjuvant treatment, and follow-up details. The change in tumor board decision and actual treatment taken by the patient were all recorded, taking into consideration the COVID-19 pandemic., Results: Among the 1567 patient contacts, 1306 were out-patient visits and 261 teleconsultations. Fifty-four patients underwent surgery from the 87 admitted to the hospital. Ten preoperative patients and two postoperative patients were tested for COVID and reported to be negative., Conclusions: The dilemma of providing cancer surgery services to the patients in this pandemic has been global. Strict measures and guidelines can help to overcome the COVID pandemic time, keeping in mind the locoregional logistics., (© 2020 Wiley Periodicals LLC.)

Background: Healthcare is an essential service at any time more so in the crisis like Covid. With increase in number of cases and mortality from Covid, the primary focus is shifted to the management of the Covid crisis and other health emergencies thus affecting normal health services and routine treatment of other diseases like cancer., Methods: This article reviews the published literature and guidelines on Covid and cancer and discusses them to optimize the care of cancer patients during Covid pandemic to improve treatment outcomes., Results: The results of the review of published literature show a twofold increase in probability of getting CoV2 infection by the cancer patients and a four-fold increase in chance of death. On the other hand, if left untreated a 20% increase in cancer death is expected. Data further show that none of the medicines like remdesivir, hydroxy chloroquin, dexamethasone, or azithromycin improves survival and response to Covid in cancer patients. Surgical results too show similar outcome before and after the pandemic though most of these report on highly selected patients populations., Conclusions: The Covid 2019 pandemic places cancer patients in a very difficult situation wherein if they seek treatment, they are exposing themselves to a risk of developing CoV2 infection and if they do not, the probability of dying without treatment increases. Hence, for them it is a choice between the devil and deep sea, and it is for the healthcare providers to triage patients and treat who cannot wait even though the data from the carefully selected cohort of patients show no increase in mortality or morbidity from treatment during Covid.

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has created unprecedented disruption in health care delivery around the world. In an effort to prevent hospital-acquired COVID-19 infections, most hospitals have severely curtailed elective surgery, performing only surgeries if the patient's survival or permanent function would be compromised by a delay in surgery. As hospitals emerge from the pandemic, it will be necessary to progressively increase surgical activity at a time when hospitals continue to care for COVID-19 patients. In an attempt to mitigate the risk of nosocomial infection, we have created a patient care pathway designed to minimize risk of exposure of patients coming into the hospital for scheduled procedures. The COVID-minimal surgery pathway is a predetermined patient flow, which dictates the locations, personnel, and materials that come in contact with our cancer surgery population, designed to minimize risk for virus transmission. We outline the approach that allowed a large academic medical center to create a COVID-minimal cancer surgery pathway within 7 days of initiating discussions. Although the pathway represents a combination of recommended practices, there are no data to support its efficacy. We share the pathway concept and our experience so that others wishing to similarly align staff and resources toward the protection of patients may have an easier time navigating the process., (Copyright © 2020 The Society of Thoracic Surgeons. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

The 2019 novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic has been spreading worldwide at an alarming rate. Health-care workers have been confronted with the challenge of not only treating patients with the virus, but also managing the disruption of health-care services caused by COVID-19. In anticipation of outbreak, clinic sessions and operation theater lists have been actively cut back since February 2020 to reduce hospital admissions and clinic attendances. This has severely disrupted health-care services, leading to accumulating clinic caseload and substantial delays for operations. The head and neck cancer service has been faced with the difficult task of managing the balance between infection risk to health-care providers and the risk of disease progression from prolonged waiting times. We share our experience in Hong Kong on the mitigation of head and neck cancer service disruption through telehealth and multi-institution collaboration., (© 2020 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.)

Introduction: The ongoing worldwide pandemic due to COVID-19 has forced drastic changes on the daily lives of the global population. This is most notable within the health care sector. The current paper outlines the response of the head and neck oncologic surgery (HNS) division within our academic otolaryngology department in the state of Alabama., Methods: Data with regard to case numbers and types were obtained during the pandemic and compared with time matched data. Our overall approach to managing previously scheduled and new cases, personal protective equipment (PPE) utilization, outpatient clinic, and resident involvement is summarized., Discussion: Our HNS division saw a 55% reduction in surgical volume during the peak of the COVID-19 pandemic. We feel that an early and cohesive strategy to triaging surgical cases, PPE usage, and minimizing exposure of personnel is essential to providing care for HNS patients during this pandemic., (© 2020 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.)

From the onset of the COVID-19 global pandemic of 2020, the American College of Surgeons has been a leader in disseminating reliable information on the nature of the crisis and assuring quality of surgical care during the enforced lockdown of inpatient and outpatient care.

Introduction: The COVID-19 pandemic has raised controversies regarding safe and effective care of patients with head and neck cancer. It is unknown how much the pandemic has changed surgeon practice., Methods: A questionnaire was distributed to head and neck surgeons assessing opinions related to treatment and concerns for the safety of patients, self, family, and staff., Results: A total of 88 head and neck surgeons responded during the study period. Surgeons continued to recommend primary surgical treatment for oral cavity cancers. Respondents were more likely to consider nonsurgical therapy for patients with early glottic cancers and HPV-mediated oropharynx cancer. Surgeons were least likely to be concerned for their own health and safety and had the greatest concern for their resident trainees., Conclusions: This study highlights differences in the willingness of head and neck surgeons to delay surgery or alter plans during times when hospital resources are scarce and risk is high., (© 2020 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.)

The COVID-19 pandemic has had a dramatic impact on care delivery among health care institutions and providers in the United States. As a categorical cancer center, MD Anderson has prioritized care for our patients based on acuity of their disease. We continue to implement measures to protect patients and employees from acquiring the infection within our facilities, and to provide acute management of cancer patients with concomitant COVID-19 infections who are considered at high risk of death. The Division of Patient Experience, formerly established in October 2016, has played an integral role in the institution's pandemic response from its inception. The team actively supported programs and processes in anticipation of the pandemic's effect on our patients and employees. We will describe how the team continues to serve in the ever-dynamic environment as we approach the expected surge in COVID-19 cases among our patient population, our employees, and in our community., (© 2020 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.)

In India, oral cancer is the most common head and neck cancer (HNC) in men, mainly caused by the consumption of smoked and smokeless tobacco. During the current pandemic, delaying surgery for even 1 or 2 months may lead to more extensive surgery or inoperability, where only supportive care can be provided. Being semi-emergent in nature, treatment for these patients is currently on hold or delayed in most centers across the country. This study was conducted to assess the impact of COVID-19 pandemic and inability of the health system to treat HNC in a timely fashion and how surgeons are coping to this emergent situation. This article highlights the situation in India, a country burdened with one of the highest incidence rates of HNC., (© 2020 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.)

The speed and scale of the global COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in unprecedented pressures on health services worldwide, requiring new methods of service delivery during the health crisis. In the setting of severe resource constraint and high risk of infection to patients and clinicians, there is an urgent need to identify consensus statements on head and neck surgical oncology practice. We completed a modified Delphi consensus process of three rounds with 40 international experts in head and neck cancer surgical, radiation, and medical oncology, representing 35 international professional societies and national clinical trial groups. Endorsed by 39 societies and professional bodies, these consensus practice recommendations aim to decrease inconsistency of practice, reduce uncertainty in care, and provide reassurance for clinicians worldwide for head and neck surgical oncology in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic and in the setting of acute severe resource constraint and high risk of infection to patients and staff., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

The COVID-19 pandemic has placed an extraordinary demand on the United States health care system. Many institutions have canceled elective and non-urgent procedures to conserve resources and limit exposure. While operational definitions of elective and urgent categories exist, there is a degree of surgeon judgment in designation. In the present commentary, we provide a framework for prioritizing head and neck surgery during the pandemic. Unique considerations for the head and neck patient are examined including risk to the oncology patient, outcomes following delay in head and neck cancer therapy, and risk of transmission during otolaryngologic surgery. Our case prioritization criteria consist of four categories: urgent-proceed with surgery, less urgent-consider postpone > 30 days, less urgent-consider postpone 30 to 90 days, and case-by-case basis. Finally, we discuss our preoperative clinical pathway for transmission mitigation including defining low-risk and high-risk surgery for transmission and role of preoperative COVID-19 testing., (© 2020 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.)

Background: The novel coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has changed health care, challenged by resource constraints and fears of transmission. We report the surgical practice pattern changes in a Head and Neck Surgery department of a tertiary cancer care center and discuss the issues surrounding multidisciplinary care during the pandemic., Methods: We report data regarding outpatient visits, multidisciplinary treatment planning conference, surgical caseload, and modifications of oncologic therapy during this pandemic and compared this data to the same interval last year., Results: We found a 46.7% decrease in outpatient visits and a 46.8% decrease in surgical caseload, compared to 2019. We discuss the factors involved in the decision-making process and perioperative considerations., Conclusions: Surgical practice patterns in head and neck oncologic surgery will continue to change with the evolving pandemic. Despite constraints, we strive to prioritize and balance the oncologic and safety needs of patients with head and neck cancer in the face of COVID-19., (© 2020 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.)

Background: The SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) pandemic has caused rapid changes in head and neck cancer (HNC) care. "Real-time" methods to monitor practice patterns can optimize provider safety and patient care., Methods: Head and neck surgeons from 14 institutions in the United States regularly contributed their practice patterns to a shared spreadsheet. Data from 27 March 2020 to 5 April 2020 was analyzed., Results: All institutions had significantly restricted HNC clinic evaluations. Two institutions stopped free-flap surgery with the remaining scheduling surgery by committee review. Factors contributing to reduced clinical volume included lack of personal protective equipment (PPE) (35%) and lack of rapid COVID-19 testing (86%)., Conclusions: The COVID-19 pandemic has caused a reduction in HNC care. Rapid COVID-19 testing and correlation with infectious potential remain paramount to resuming the care of patients with head and neck cancer. Cloud-based platforms to share practice patterns will be essential as the pandemic evolves., (© 2020 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.)

Importance: Women are underrepresented in medical leadership positions; however, representation of women among academic oncology leadership is unknown., Objectives: To evaluate representation of women overall and in leadership positions in academic medical oncology (MO), radiation oncology (RO), and surgical oncology (SO) programs and to examine the association of women leadership with overall faculty representation of women per program., Design, Setting, and Participants: In this cross-sectional study, MO, RO, and SO training program websites were queried from October 2018 through June 2019. All faculty from 265 of 273 accredited MO, RO, and SO training programs (97.1%) were included., Exposure: Gender., Main Outcomes and Measures: Observed proportions of women in leadership positions compared with the expected proportion of overall women faculty in MO, RO, and SO were assessed. Rates of representation of women across each MO, RO, and SO program's faculty based on the presence or absence of a woman in a leadership position were compared., Results: Of 6030 total faculty, only 2164 (35.9%) were women. Total representation of women among MO, RO, and SO faculty was 37.1% (1563 of 4215), 30.7% (389 of 1269), and 38.8% (212 of 546), respectively. Women composed only 21.7% (30 of 138), 11.7% (11 of 94), and 3.8% (1 of 26) of MO, RO, and SO chair positions, respectively. The observed proportion of women in chair positions was significantly lower than the expected proportion for MO, RO, and SO. In all, 47.9%, 33%, and 18.5% of MO, RO, and SO programs, respectively, had at least 1 woman in a leadership position (program director or chair). Programs with 1 or more women in a leadership position were associated with a higher mean (SD) percentage of women faculty than those without at least 1 woman leader in MO (40.7% [12.5%] vs 33.1% [11.0%]; P < .001) and RO (36.2% [13.3%] vs 23.4% [12.3%]; P < .001) but not SO (40.2% [15.4%] vs 31.4% [16.9%]; P = .29)., Conclusions and Relevance: Gender disparity exists in academic MO, RO, and SO faculty, which is magnified at the chair level. Programs in MO and RO with a woman physician in a leadership position were associated with a higher percentage of women faculty, but this was not true for SO. These data will serve as a benchmark to monitor progress toward a more balanced workforce.

Purpose: Centralization is often proposed as a strategy to improve the quality of certain high-risk health care services. We evaluated the extent to which existing hospital systems centralize high-risk cancer surgery and whether centralization is associated with short-term clinical outcomes., Patients and Methods: We merged data from the American Hospital Association's annual survey on hospital system affiliation with Medicare claims to identify patients undergoing surgery for pancreatic, esophageal, colon, lung, or rectal cancer between 2005 and 2014. We calculated the degree to which systems centralized each procedure by calculating the annual proportion of surgeries performed at the highest-volume hospital within each system. We then estimated the independent effect of centralization on the incidence of postoperative complications, death, and readmissions after accounting for patient, hospital, and system characteristics., Results: The average degree of centralization varied from 25.2% (range, 6.6% to 100%) for colectomy to 71.2% (range, 8.3% to 100%) for pancreatectomy. Greater centralization was associated with lower rates of postoperative complications and death for lung resection, esophagectomy, and pancreatectomy. For example, there was a 1.1% (95% CI, 0.8% to 1.4%) absolute reduction in 30-day mortality after pancreatectomy for each 20% increase in the degree of centralization within systems. Independent of volume and hospital quality, postoperative mortality for pancreatectomy was two times higher in the least centralized systems than in the most centralized systems (8.9% v 3.7%, P < .01). Centralization was not associated with better outcomes for colectomy or proctectomy., Conclusion: Greater centralization of complex cancer surgery within existing hospital systems was associated with better outcomes. As hospitals affiliate in response to broader financial and organization pressures, these systems may also present unique opportunities to improve the quality of high-risk cancer care.

Primary abdominal visceral soft tissue sarcomas (STSs) are rare tumours in dogs with little information available on outcomes. The goal of this retrospective, multi-institutional study was to describe the common tumour types, location and prognostic factors associated with primary abdominal visceral STSs. Medical records were searched for dogs with primary abdominal visceral STSs at six institutions and were retrospectively reviewed. Tumours were graded using the previously described grading scheme for STSs of the skin and subcutis when information in the histopathology report contained adequate details. Forty-two dogs were included in the study. Five dogs had grade I tumours, 11 had grade II and 15 had grade III tumours. The most common tumour type was leiomyosarcoma (38.1%). The most common tumour locations were the spleen (47.6%) and small intestine (23.8%). The local recurrence rate was low (4.7%). Metastasis was present at the time of surgery in 23.8%, and the overall metastatic rate was 40.4%. Mitotic index of ≥9 was associated with significantly shorter survival time (MST 269 days) compared with a mitotic index of <9 (MST not reached). The MST for grade I STSs was not reached, was 589 days for grade II and 158 days for grade III. Dogs with grade III tumours were more likely to develop metastatic disease. Neither location of the primary tumour nor the histologic subtype was associated with survival time. Histologic grading of abdominal visceral STSs using the previously described scheme is prognostic and should be provided on histopathology reports., (© 2019 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Background: The objective of this study was to examine the influence of Surgical Society Oncology (SSO) membership and National Cancer Institute (NCI) status on the academic output of surgical faculty., Methods: NCI cancer program status for each department of surgery was identified with publically available data, whereas SSO membership was determined for every faculty member. Academic output measures such as NIH funding, publications, and citations were analyzed in subsets by the type of cancer center (NCI comprehensive cancer center [CCC]; NCI cancer center [NCICC]; and non-NCI center) and SSO membership status., Results: Of the surgical faculty, 2537 surgeons (61.9%) were from CCC, whereas 854 (20.8%) were from NCICC. At the CCC, 22.7% of surgeons had a history of or current NIH funding, compared with 15.8% at the NCICC and 11.8% at the non-NCI centers. The academic output of SSO members was higher at NCICC (52 ± 113 publications/1266 ± 3830 citations) and CCC (53 ± 92/1295 ± 4001) compared with nonmembers (NCICC: 26 ± 78/437 ± 2109; CCC: 37 ± 91/670 ± 3260), respectively, P < 0.05. Multivariate logistic regression revealed that SSO membership imparts an additional 22 publications and 270 citations, whereas NCI-designated CCC added 10 additional publications, but not citations., Conclusions: CCCs have significantly higher academic output and NIH funding. Recruitment of SSO members, a focus on higher performing divisions, and NIH funding are factors that non-NCI cancer centers may be able to focus on to improve academic productivity to aid in obtaining NCI designation., (Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: Gynecologic malignancies are the leading cause of cancer death among women in Botswana. Twenty-five percent of cervical cancers present at a stage that could be surgically cured; however, there are no gynecologic oncologists to provide radical surgeries. A sustainable model for delivery of advanced surgery is essential to advance treatment for gynecologic malignancies., Methods/materials: A model was developed to provide gynecologic oncology surgery in Botswana, delivered by US-based gynecologic oncologists in four 2-week blocks per year. A pilot gynecologic oncology campaign was planned at a district hospital. Eligible patients were identified through the gynecologic oncology multidisciplinary clinic at the regional referral hospital, where gynecologic oncology treatment planning is provided. Local providers were invited to participate to build local surgical capacity., Results: One US-based gynecologic oncologist, 2 gynecologists, and 2 surgeons working in Botswana participated in the pilot campaign. Sixteen operations were performed over 7 days. Indications included cervical cancer (4), ovarian cancer (3), vulvar cancer (1), complex atypical hyperplasia (1), pre-invasive cervical disease (2), and benign disease (3), as well as 2 obstetric emergencies. The only gynecologic oncology complication was a case of bleeding requiring transfusion and postoperative intensive care unit admission. Follow-up care was coordinated through the gynecologic oncology multidisciplinary clinic., Conclusions: Periodic gynecologic oncology campaigns in settings otherwise lacking local capacity to perform advanced surgery are a feasible model to create access and build local capacity. Strong local collaboration is essential. Future strategies to increase impact include recruitment of more gynecologic oncologists to increase service and training availability.

Objective To perform a single-centre, detailed analysis of the preparations for the introduction of the first pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC) programme in the eastern part of Central Europe. Methods The study analysed the 14-month preparation period prior to the performance of the first PIPAC procedure with respect to: (i) general preparations; (ii) patient referral and qualification; (iii) the first PIPAC procedure; (iv) the 2 weeks following PIPAC programme establishment; and (v) general problematic issues that arose. Results The length of time needed to prepare our institution for the first PIPAC procedure was extremely long compared with other European Union PIPAC centres: 14 months versus a standard 3-6 months of preparation. The longest amount of time (12 months) was required to prepare the required paperwork. Conclusions A new PIPAC programme was successfully established in the eastern part of Central Europe. The length of time to implement this method was significantly longer because of lengthy bureaucratic processes. These current findings should help new centres, especially in this part of Europe, to establish a PIPAC programme more quickly.

Background: For clinical T1-2N0 breast cancer, sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) has been shown in American College of Surgeons Oncology Group (ACOSOG) Z0011 to be sufficient for women with 1 to 2 positive sentinel lymph nodes with no added benefit for completion axillary lymph node dissection (ALND). Z0011 specified whole breast radiotherapy (RT) using standard tangential fields; however, later analysis showed variation in field design. We assessed nationwide practice patterns and examined factors associated with patients undergoing completion ALND and subsequent radiation field design., Patients and Methods: Women with clinical T1-2N0 breast cancer who underwent breast-conserving surgery, axillary staging, and whole breast RT in 2012 to 2013 were identified in the National Cancer Database. Multivariable logistic regression modeling was used to examine axillary management and RT, adjusting for demographic and clinicopathologic factors., Results: Among 83,555 patients meeting criteria, 9.3% underwent upfront ALND, 75.8% underwent SLNB only, and 14.9% underwent SLNB with completion ALND. From 2012 to 2013, upfront SLNB increased from 90.1% to 91.4% (odds ratio, 1.14; P < .001). Among 9474 patients that underwent SLNB with 1 to 2 positive sentinel nodes, 31.2% received completion ALND. Among patients with 1 to 2 positive sentinel nodes, SLNB increased from 65.8% to 72.1% from 2012 to 2013 (P < .001). For patients with 1 to 2 positive lymph nodes that underwent SLNB only, 63.4% underwent breast RT, whereas 36.6% received breast and nodal RT., Conclusions: Nationwide practice patterns of axillary management vary. Despite an increasing rate of SLNB, many patients still receive upfront and completion ALND. Furthermore, there is significant variation in RT field design, and modern treatment guidelines are warranted for this patient population., (Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Palliative care has long been described in medical literature but only recently is being discussed in the surgical domain. Mounting evidence suggests that early integration of palliative care improves patient outcomes and this is especially true of oncology patients. Thus, the pendulum is swinging toward recognizing that palliative care and active disease management are not mutually exclusive but rather synergistic in modern surgical oncology. Here we use a patient vignette to demonstrate the new challenges and possibilities in modern surgical oncology, we then discuss the historic perspective of palliative care and describe how the paradigm is shifting. Finally, we introduce a model that may be beneficial in conceptualizing this new way of thinking about and integrating palliative care into surgical oncology., (Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

From the 1940s onward the establishment of an increasing number of cancer centres in Ontario concentrated predominantly on radiation and systemic therapy. Increasing attention to the organization of cancer surgery services in Ontario over the last 3 decades through measures led by Cancer Care Ontario has resulted in building a progressive provincial and regional surgical oncology network. These networks are rooted in leadership mobilization and have used quality data and best evidence to promote the elaboration of communities of practice to achieve better outcomes. This article briefly chronicles this journey and points to areas of progress.

Background: Several challenges presently impede the conduct of prospective clinical studies in orthopaedic oncology, including limited financial resources to support their associated costs and inadequate patient volume at most single institutions. This study was conducted to prioritize research questions within the field so that the Musculoskeletal Tumor Society (MSTS), and other relevant professional societies, can direct the limited human and fiscal resources available to address the priorities that the stakeholders involved believe will have the most meaningful impact on orthopaedic oncology patient care., Questions/purposes: The purpose of this study was to use a formal consensus-based approach involving clinician-scientists and other stakeholders to identify the top priority research questions for future international prospective clinical studies in orthopaedic oncology., Methods: A three-step modified Delphi process involving multiple stakeholder groups (including orthopaedic oncologists, research personnel, funding agency representation, and patient representation) was conducted. First, we sent an electronic questionnaire to all participants to solicit clinically relevant research questions (61 participants; 54% of the original 114 individuals invited to participate returned the questionnaires). Then, participants rated the candidate research questions using a 5-point Likert scale for five criteria (60 participants; 53% of the original group participated in this portion of the process). Research questions that met a priori consensus thresholds progressed for consideration to an in-person consensus meeting, which was attended by 44 participants (39% of the original group; 12 countries were represented at this meeting). After the consensus panel's discussion, members individually assigned scores to each question using a 9-point Likert scale. Research questions that met preset criteria advanced to final ranking, and panel members individually ranked their top three priority research questions, resulting in a final overall ranking of research priorities., Results: A total of 73 candidate research questions advanced to the consensus meeting. In the end, the consensus panel identified four research priorities: (1) Does less intensive surveillance of patients with sarcoma affect survival? (2) What are the survival outcomes over time for orthopaedic oncology implants? (3) Does resection versus stabilization improve oncologic and functional outcomes in oligometastatic bone disease? (4) What is the natural history of untreated fibromatosis?, Conclusions: The results of this study will assist in developing a long-term research strategy for the MSTS and, possibly, the orthopaedic oncology field as a whole. Furthermore, the results of this study can assist researchers in guiding their research efforts and in providing a justified rationale to funding agencies when requesting the resources necessary to support future collaborative research studies that address the identified orthopaedic oncology priorities.

Background: Liver surgery for colorectal metastases (CLM) is moving toward parenchyma-sparing approaches. The authors reported the technical feasibility of parenchyma-sparing hepatectomy for deeply located tumors, but its impact on daily practice and long-term outcomes remain unclear., Methods: The patients undergoing liver resection (LR) for CLM with vascular contact (first-/second-order pedicle or hepatic vein (HV) trunk) were considered. Those undergoing major hepatectomy were excluded. The authors' technique included tumor-vessel detachment, partial resection of marginally infiltrated HVs, and detection of communicating vessels (CVs) among HVs to preserve outflow after HV resection., Results: Among 169 patients with major vascular contact, parenchyma-sparing LR was feasible in 146 (86%). Twenty-eight SERPS, 13 transversal hepatectomies, 6 mini-mesohepatectomies, and 4 liver tunnels were performed. Sixty-six (45%) patients underwent CLM-vessel detachment, 25 (17%) underwent partial HV resection, and 30 (21%) achieved outflow preservation by CV identification. The mortality and severe morbidity rates were 1.4% and 8.2%, respectively. The 5-year survival rate was 30.7%. The parenchyma-sparing strategy failed in 14 (7%) patients because of recurrence in the spared parenchyma or cut edge; 13 were radically retreated., Conclusion: Ultrasound-guided parenchyma-sparing surgery is feasible in most patients with ill-located CLMs. This procedure is safe and achieves adequate oncologic outcomes., (Copyright © 2017 International Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Association Inc. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Purpose Regionalization of complex surgery to high-volume hospitals has been advocated based on cross-sectional volume-outcome studies. In April 2007, the agency overseeing cancer care in Ontario, Canada, implemented a policy to regionalize lung cancer surgery at 14 designated hospitals, enforced by economic incentives and penalties. We studied the effects of implementation of this policy. Methods Using administrative health data, we used interrupted time series models to analyze the immediate and delayed effects of implementation of the policy on the distribution of lung cancer surgery among hospitals, surgical outcomes, and health services use. Results From 2004 to 2012, 16,641 patients underwent surgery for lung cancer. The proportion of operations performed in designated hospitals increased from 71% to 89% after the policy was implemented. Although operative mortality decreased from 4.1% to 2.9% (adjusted odds ratio, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.58 to 0.81; P < .001), the reduction was due to a preexisting declining trend in mortality. In contrast, in the years after implementation of the policy, length of hospital stay decreased more than expected from the baseline trend by 7% per year (95% CI, 5% to 9%; P < .001), and the distance traveled by all patients to the hospital for surgery increased by 4% per year (95% CI, 0% to 8%; P = .03), neither of which were explained by preexisting trends. Analyses limited to patients ≥ 70 years of age demonstrated a reduction in operative mortality (odds ratio, 0.80 per year after regionalization; 95% CI, 0.67 to 0.95; P = .01). Conclusion A policy to regionalize lung cancer surgery in Ontario led to increased centralization of surgery services but was not independently associated with improvements in operative mortality. Improvements in length of stay and in operative mortality among elderly patients suggest areas where regionalization may be beneficial.

Objectives: To explore the opportunities to incorporate palliative care into perioperative oncology patient management and education strategies for surgical oncology nurses., Data Sources: Articles related to palliative care and surgical oncology to determine the degree of integration, gaps, and implications for practice., Conclusion: Although evidence supports positive patient outcomes when palliative care is integrated in the perioperative period, uptake of palliative care into surgical settings is slow. Palliative care concepts are not adequately integrated into surgical and nursing education., Implications for Nursing Practice: With appropriate palliative care education and training, surgical oncology nurses will be empowered to foster surgical-palliative care collaborations to improve patient outcomes., (Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

It has been 10 years since the first class of Society of Surgical Oncology (SSO) fellowship trained Breast Surgical Oncologist entered practice. To date, there has been no publications examining the effectiveness of these training programs that are today throughout North America and Europe. This evaluative review examines the effectiveness of these fellowship training programs through the lens of the Kirkpatrick Evaluation Model. An extensive review of the literature was performed, and articles were categorized to capture how fellows are reacting to the program, what they are learning, and how the program is effecting their career path and impacting their patients. We can conclude that there is both direct and indirect evidence to support the effectiveness of this training program, but there is a paucity of direct evidence as one progresses from a level 1 Kirkpatrick analysis to a level 4. This review sets the framework for program evaluation in surgical fellowships and should encourage stakeholders to constantly evaluate the impact their program is having on trainees and oncology patients.

This is the official guideline endorsed by the surgical specialty associations involved in the care of head and neck cancer patients in the UK. This paper summarises the current state of play in the organisation and provision of head and neck cancer surgical services in the UK.