Adherence to surgical and oncologic standards improves survival in breast cancer patients

Assessing Surgeon Familiarity with the Commission on Cancer Operative Standards for Cancer Surgery

BACKGROUND

In response to growing evidence that proper performance of operative techniques during cancer surgery is associated with improved patient outcomes, the American College of Surgeons (ACS) implemented six operative standards as part of Commission on Cancer (CoC) accreditation. This study aimed to assess surgeon familiarity with these standards when first introduced and 2 years after their adoption.

METHODS

The ACS Cancer Surgery Standards Program distributed an anonymous 36-question survey to CoC-accredited cancer programs in 2021 and 2023. Questions specific to operative techniques determined the Surgery Score, and those specific to the accreditation standards determined the Standards Score. Mean scores were compared using one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and t tests.

RESULTS

The survey was completed by 376 surgeons in 2021 and 380 surgeons in 2023. The Surgery Scores were higher than the Standards Scores in 2021 and 2023. The surgeons who practiced at institutions with CoC accreditation had significantly higher Standards Scores than the surgeons at non-accredited institutions in 2021 (p = 0.005) and 2023 (p = 0.004), but not significantly different Surgery Scores.

CONCLUSIONS

The baseline survey in 2021 demonstrated significant knowledge of technical aspects of cancer surgery among a broad surgeon base, but a need for greater understanding of the accreditation standards. The repeat survey distribution 2 years after rollout of the operative standards and associated educational programing showed increased awareness surrounding the operative standards in 2023 and a trend toward improvement in knowledge of the accreditation standards across all specialties. Further evaluation will be directed toward compliance with the accreditation standards.

Factors Influencing Implementation of the Commission on Cancer's Breast Synoptic Operative Report (Alliance A20_Pilot9)

BACKGROUND

The technical aspects of cancer surgery have a significant impact on patient outcomes. To monitor surgical quality, in 2020, the Commission on Cancer (CoC) revised its accreditation standards for cancer surgery and introduced the synoptic operative reports (SORs). The standardization of SORs holds promise, but successful implementation requires strategies to address key implementation barriers. This study aimed to identify the barriers and facilitators to implementing breast SOR within diverse CoC-accredited programs.

METHODS

In-depth semi-structured interviews were conducted with 31 health care professionals across diverse CoC-accredited sites. The study used two comprehensive implementation frameworks to guide data collection and analysis.

RESULTS

Successful SOR implementation was impeded by disrupted workflows, surgeon resistance to change, low prioritization of resources, and poor flow of information despite CoC's positive reputation. Participants often lacked understanding of the requirements and timeline for breast SOR and were heavily influenced by prior experiences with templates and SOR champion relationships. The perceived lack of monetary benefits (to obtaining CoC accreditation) together with the significant information technology (IT) resource requirements tempered some of the enthusiasm. Additionally, resource constraints and the redirection of personnel during the COVID-19 pandemic were noted as hurdles.

CONCLUSIONS

Surgeon behavior and workflow change, IT and personnel resources, and communication and networking strategies influenced SOR implementation. During early implementation and the implementation planning phase, the primary focus was on achieving buy-in and initiating successful roll-out rather than effective use or sustainment. These findings have implications for enhancing standardization of surgical cancer care and guidance of future strategies to optimize implementation of CoC accreditation standards.

Center-level variation in hospitalization costs of pancreaticoduodenectomy for pancreatic cancer

BACKGROUND

Pancreaticoduodenectomy is a highly morbid operation with significant resource utilization. Using a national cohort, we examined the interhospital variation in pancreaticoduodenectomy hospitalization cost in the United States.

METHODS

Adults undergoing elective pancreaticoduodenectomy in the setting of pancreatic cancer were tabulated from the 2016-2020 Nationwide Readmissions Database. A 2-level mixed-effects model was developed to evaluate the interhospital variation in pancreaticoduodenectomy hospitalization costs. Institutions within the top decile of risk-adjusted expenditures were defined as high-cost hospitals. Multivariable regression models were fitted to examine the association between high-cost hospital status and outcomes of interest. To account for the effects of complications on expenditures, a subgroup analysis comprising of patients with no adverse events was conducted.

RESULTS

The study included an estimated 24,779 patients with a median hospitalization cost of $38,800. After mixed-effects modeling, 40.9% of the cost variation was attributable to hospital, rather than patient, factors. Multivariable regression models revealed an association between high-cost hospital status and greater odds of complications and longer length of stay. Among patients without an adverse event, interhospital cost variation remained significant at 61.0%, and treatment at high-cost hospitals was similarly linked to longer length of stay.

CONCLUSION

Our study identified significant interhospital variation in pancreaticoduodenectomy hospitalization costs in the United States. Although high-cost hospital status was associated with increased odds of complications, variation remained significant even among patients without an adverse event. These results suggest the important role of hospital practices as contributors to expenditures. Further efforts to identify drivers of costs and standardize pancreatic surgical care are warranted.

Assessing trends in breast care surveillance metrics after implementing surgeon-specific tracking and performance reporting in a large, integrated cancer network

BACKGROUND

There are few quality metrics and benchmarks specific to surgical oncology. Development of a surgeon-level performance metrics system based on peer comparisons is hypothesized to positively influence surgical decision-making. This study established a tracking and reporting system comprised of evidence and consensus-based metrics to assess breast care delivered by individual surgeons.

METHODS

Surgeons' performance is assessed by a surveillance tracking system of metrics pertaining to referrals and surgical elements. This retrospective analysis of prospectively collected breast care data reports on recurring 6-month and cumulative data from nine care locations from 2015 to 2021.

RESULTS

Breast care was provided to 6659 patients by 41 surgeons. A total of 27 breast care metrics were evaluated over 7 years. Metrics with consistent, proficient results were retired after 18 months, including the rate of core biopsy, specimen orientation, and referrals to medical oncology, genetics, and fertility, among others. In clinically node-negative, hormone receptor-positive patients 70 years of age or older, the cumulative rate of sentinel lymph node (SLN) biopsy significantly decreased by 40% over 5.5 years (p < .001). The overall breast conservation rate for T0-T2 cancer increased 10% over 7 years. At the surgeon level, improvements were made in the median number of SLNs removed and in operative note documentation.

CONCLUSIONS

Implementation of a surgeon-specific, peer comparison-based metric and tracking system has yielded substantive changes in breast care management. This process and governance structure can serve as a model for quantification of breast care at other institutions and for other disease sites.

Meeting the New Commission on Cancer Operative Standards: Where Do We Stand Now?

INTRODUCTION

The 2020 Commission on Cancer accreditation standards 5.7 and 5.8 address total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer and lymph node sampling for lung cancer. The purpose of this review was to assess our institution's compliance with these operative standards, which will be required in 2022 and 2023, and provide recommendations to other military training facilities seeking to comply with these standards.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A 2018-2020 single institution chart review was performed of operative and pathology reports. Identified deficits were addressed in meetings with colorectal and thoracic surgery leadership, and cases were followed to reassess compliance.

RESULTS

A total of 12 rectal and 48 lung cancer cases met the inclusion criteria and were examined. Pre-intervention compliance for standards 5.7 and 5.8 was 58% and 35%, respectively, because of inadequate synoptic reporting and lymph node sampling. After intervention, compliance was 100%.

CONCLUSIONS

Our institution requires changes to comply with new standards, including in areas of documentation and systematic pulmonary lymph node sampling. We provide lessons learned from our own institutional experience, including practical tips and recommendations to achieve compliance. All military training facilities performing lung and rectal oncologic resections should conduct an internal review of applicable cases in preparation for upcoming American College of Surgeons Commission on Cancer site visits.

Leveraging the Multidisciplinary Tumor Board for Dissemination of Evidence-Based Recommendations on the Staging and Treatment of Gastric Cancer: A Pilot Study

BACKGROUND

Compliance with evidence-based treatment guidelines for gastric cancer across the United States is poor. This pilot study aimed to create and evaluate a change package for disseminating information on the staging and treatment of gastric cancer during multidisciplinary tumor boards and for identifying barriers to implementation.

METHODS

The change package included a 10-min video, a brief knowledge assessment, and a discussion guide. Commission on Cancer-accredited sites that perform gastrectomy were invited to participate. Participants completed the Organizational Readiness for Implementing Change (ORIC) scale (range, 12-60) and scales to measure the feasibility, acceptability, and appropriateness (score range, 4-20). Semi-structured interviews were conducted to further define inner and outer setting barriers.

RESULTS

Seven centers participated in the study. A total of 74 participants completed the pre-video knowledge assessment, and 55 participants completed the post-video assessment. The recommendations found to be most controversial were separate staging laparoscopy and modified D2 lymphadenectomy. Sum scores were calculated for acceptability (mean, 17.43 ± 2.51) appropriateness (mean, 16.86 ± 3.24), and feasibility (mean, 16.14 ± 3.07) of the change package. The ORIC scores (mean, 46.57 ± 8.22) correlated with responses to the open-ended questions. The key barriers identified were patient volume, skills in the procedures, and attitudes and beliefs.

CONCLUSIONS

The change package was moderately to highly feasible, appropriate, and acceptable. The activity identified specific recommendations for gastric cancer care that are considered controversial and local barriers to implementation. Future efforts could focus on building skills and knowledge as well as the more difficult issue of attitudes and beliefs.

New Operative Reporting Standards: Where We Stand Now and Opportunities for Innovation

BACKGROUND

The American College of Surgeons Commission on Cancer's (CoC) new operative standards for breast cancer, melanoma, and colon cancer surgeries will require that surgeons provide synoptic documentation of essential oncologic elements within operative reports. Prior to designing and implementing an electronic tool to support synoptic reporting, we evaluated current documentation practices at our institution to understand baseline concordance with these standards.

METHODS

Applicable procedures performed between 1 January 2018 and 31 December 2018 were included. Two independent reviewers evaluated sequential operative notes, up to a total of 100 notes, for documentation of required elements. Complete concordance (CC) was defined as explicit documentation of all required CoC elements. Mean percentage CC and surgeon-specific CC were calculated for each procedure. Interrater reliability was assessed via Cohen's kappa statistic.

RESULTS

For sentinel lymph node biopsy, mean CC was 66% (n = 100), with surgeon-specific CC ranging from 6 to 100%, and for axillary dissection, mean CC was 12% (n = 89) and surgeon-specific CC ranged from 0 to 47%. The single surgeon performing melanoma wide local excision had a mean CC of 98% (n = 100). For colon resections, mean CC was 69% (n = 96) and surgeon-specific CC ranged from 39 to 94%. Kappa scores were 0.77, 0.78, -0.15, and 0.78, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

We identified heterogeneity in current documentation practices. In our cohort, rates of baseline concordance varied across surgeons and procedures. Currently, documentation elements are interspersed within the operative report, posing challenges to chart abstraction with resulting imperfect interrater reliability. This presents an exciting opportunity to innovate and improve compliance by introducing an electronic synoptic documentation tool.

Technical Standards for Cancer Surgery: Improving Patient Care through Synoptic Operative Reporting

The Operative Standards for Cancer Surgery manuals define critical elements of optimal cancer surgery based on data and expert opinion. These key aspects of commonly performed cancer operations define technical standards that can be used as a quality assurance tool for practicing surgical oncologists and as an educational tool for trainees. This article provides background on these operative standards and their subsequent integration into synoptic operative report templates. With the goal of codifying the most important aspects of surgical oncology care to elevate and harmonize cancer care, the American College of Surgeons Cancer Programs has developed comprehensive synoptic operative reports. Synoptic operative reports are structured so that key data elements are recorded in a standardized format with prespecified terminology. In contrast to the narrative or structured operative reports frequently used by surgeons, these synoptic operative reports improve semantic clarity, provide uniform fields for abstraction, and facilitate passive data collection and real-time analytics while delivering key information for downstream multidisciplinary patient care. In this way, the synoptic operative report is a key component of a comprehensive effort to elevate the quality of cancer care nationally.