Perception versus reality: A National Cohort Analysis of the surgery-first approach for resectable pancreatic cancer

INTRODUCTION: Although surgical resection is necessary, it is not sufficient for long-term survival in pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC). We sought to evaluate survival after up-front surgery (UFS) in anatomically resectable PDAC in the context of three critical factors: (A) margin status; (B) CA19-9; and (C) receipt of adjuvant chemotherapy. METHODS: The National Cancer Data Base (2010-2015) was reviewed for clinically resectable (stage 0/I/II) PDAC patients. Surgical margins, pre-operative CA19-9, and receipt of adjuvant chemotherapy were evaluated. Patient overall survival was stratified based on these factors and their respective combinations. Outcomes after UFS were compared to equivalently staged patients after neoadjuvant chemotherapy on an intention-to-treat (ITT) basis. RESULTS: Twelve thousand and eighty-nine patients were included (n = 9197 UFS, n = 2892 ITT neoadjuvant). In the UFS cohort, only 20.4% had all three factors (median OS = 31.2 months). Nearly 1/3rd (32.7%) of UFS patients had none or only one factor with concomitant worst survival (median OS = 14.7 months). Survival after UFS decreased with each failing factor (two factors: 23 months, one factor: 15.5 months, no factors: 7.9 months) and this persisted after adjustment. Overall survival was superior in the ITT-neoadjuvant cohort (27.9 vs. 22 months) to UFS. CONCLUSION: Despite the perceived benefit of UFS, only 1-in-5 UFS patients actually realize maximal survival when known factors highly associated with outcomes are assessed. Patients are proportionally more likely to do worst, rather than best after UFS treatment. Similarly staged patients undergoing ITT-neoadjuvant therapy achieve survival superior to the majority of UFS patients. Patients and providers should be aware of the false perception of \u27optimal\u27 survival benefit with UFS in anatomically resectable PDAC

An APRI+ALBI Based Multivariable Model as Preoperative Predictor for Posthepatectomy Liver Failure.

OBJECTIVE AND BACKGROUND Clinically significant posthepatectomy liver failure (PHLF B+C) remains the main cause of mortality after major hepatic resection. This study aimed to establish an APRI+ALBI, aspartate aminotransferase to platelet ratio (APRI) combined with albumin-bilirubin grade (ALBI), based multivariable model (MVM) to predict PHLF and compare its performance to indocyanine green clearance (ICG-R15 or ICG-PDR) and albumin-ICG evaluation (ALICE). METHODS 12,056 patients from the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) database were used to generate a MVM to predict PHLF B+C. The model was determined using stepwise backwards elimination. Performance of the model was tested using receiver operating characteristic curve analysis and validated in an international cohort of 2,525 patients. In 620 patients, the APRI+ALBI MVM, trained in the NSQIP cohort, was compared with MVM's based on other liver function tests (ICG clearance, ALICE) by comparing the areas under the curve (AUC). RESULTS A MVM including APRI+ALBI, age, sex, tumor type and extent of resection was found to predict PHLF B+C with an AUC of 0.77, with comparable performance in the validation cohort (AUC 0.74). In direct comparison with other MVM's based on more expensive and time-consuming liver function tests (ICG clearance, ALICE), the APRI+ALBI MVM demonstrated equal predictive potential for PHLF B+C. A smartphone application for calculation of the APRI+ALBI MVM was designed. CONCLUSION Risk assessment via the APRI+ALBI MVM for PHLF B+C increases preoperative predictive accuracy and represents an universally available and cost-effective risk assessment prior to hepatectomy, facilitated by a freely available smartphone app

Impact of patient factors on operative duration during laparoscopic cholecystectomy: evaluation from the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database

BACKGROUND: Patient factors impact laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) difficulty, specifically operative duration. This study quantifies the impact of patient factors on LC duration. METHODS: The national surgery database (American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program) was reviewed for all elective LC for biliary colic from 2005 to 2013. Multivariate general linear model and logistic regression were used to evaluate patient factors as predictors of operative duration greater than 60 minutes, adjusted for resident involvement and cholangiography. RESULTS: A total of 24,099 LC met inclusion criteria. Regression analysis found procedure duration greater than 60 minutes was less likely for patients age greater than 40 and less than 30 (P \u3c .001) and more likely for men (P \u3c .05), body mass index (BMI) greater than 30 compared with BMI 18.5 to 24.9 (P \u3c .05), abnormal liver function test (LFT) (P \u3c .05), and higher ASA class (P \u3c .05). Smoking, cardiovascular disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, diabetes, and abnormal white blood cell count were not significant predictors. CONCLUSIONS: Higher BMI, younger age, male gender, higher ASA, and abnormal LFTs are possible predictors of prolonged LC duration and can aid in operating room scheduling and utilization

At the Intersection of Patient Experience Data, Outcomes Research, and Practice: Analysis of HCAHPS Scores in Neurology Patients

Objective: To assess variation in patient-reported experience in inpatient neurology patients. Patients and Methods: We retrospectively identified 1045 patients 18 years and older admitted to a neurology service and discharged from January 1, 2013, through September 30, 2016, who completed Hospital Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (HCAHPS) surveys. Multivariable logistic regression evaluated the associations of patient factors with HCAHPS measures. Key driver analysis identified associations between HCAHPS measures and the Global score (combination of 0-10 hospital rating and likelihood to recommend). Multivariable logistic regression compared HCAHPS scores between neurology patients and those admitted to a neurosurgery (n=2190) or internal medicine (n=3401) service during the same period. Results: Among patients admitted to a neurology service, overall (summary) scores did not vary significantly by diagnosis after adjustment for age, education, and overall health, but patients with neurologic diagnoses other than stroke, epilepsy, and neurodegenerative disease were more likely to report lower Pain Management scores compared with patients with cancer. Key driver analysis showed Care Transition scores as drivers of the Global score. After adjustment, general internal medicine service patients were more likely to report low Summary scores and neurosurgery service patients were significantly less likely to report low Summary scores compared with neurology service patients. Conclusion: Efforts to improve how neurology patients experience their care should be aimed at targeting patients' perceptions of pain management, and improving care transitions is an important first-priority target for improvement. This analysis may help other institutions improve hospital rating, value-based payments, and patient-centered outcomes