National disparities in minimally invasive surgery for pancreatic tumors

Disparities in time to treatment initiation for rectal cancer patients: an analysis of demographic and socioeconomic factors

Background

This study investigated demographic and socioeconomic factors contributing to disparities in the time to treatment for rectal cancer. Subgroup analysis based on age < 50 and ≥ 50 was performed to identify differences in time to treatment among young adults (age < 50) compared to older adults with rectal cancer.

Methods

An analysis was performed using data from the National Cancer Database, spanning from 2004 to 2019. The study encompassed 281,849 patients diagnosed with rectal cancer. We compared time intervals from diagnosis to surgery, radiation, and chemotherapy, considering age, sex, race, and socioeconomic variables. Analyses were performed for the entire cohort and for two subgroups based on age (< 50 and ≥ 50).

Results

Overall, Hispanic patients experienced longer times to surgery, radiation, and chemotherapy compared to non-Hispanic patients (surgery: 94.2 vs. 79.1 days, radiation: 65.0 vs. 55.6 days, chemotherapy: 56.4 vs. 47.8 days, all p < 0.001). Patients with private insurance had shorter times to any treatment (32.5 days) compared to those with government insurance or no insurance (30.6 and 32.5 days, respectively, p < 0.001). Black patients experienced longer wait times for both radiation (63.4 days) and chemotherapy (55.2 days) compared to White patients (54.9 days for radiation and 47.3 days for chemotherapy, both p < 0.001). Interestingly, patients treated at academic facilities had longer times to treatment in surgery, radiation, and chemotherapy compared to those treated at comprehensive and community facilities. When analyzed by age, many of the overall differences persisted despite the age stratification, suggesting that these disparities were driven more by demographic and socioeconomic variables rather than by age.

Conclusion

Significant differences in the time to treatment for rectal cancer have been identified. Hispanic patients, individuals lacking private insurance, Black patients, and patients receiving care at academic facilities had the longest times to treatment. However, these differences were largely unaffected by the age (< 50 and ≥ 50) subgroup analysis. Further investigation into the causes of these disparities is warranted to develop effective strategies for reducing treatment gaps and enhancing overall care for rectal cancer patients.

Trends in access to minimally invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy for pancreatic cancers

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy (MIPD), including robotic (RPD) and laparoscopy (LPD), is becoming more frequently employed in the management of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC), though the majority of operations are still performed via open approach (OPD). Access to technologic advances often neglect the underserved. Whether disparities in access to MIPD exist, remain unclear.

METHODS

The National Cancer Database (NCDB) was queried (2010-2020) for patients who underwent pancreatoduodenectomy for PDAC. Cochran-Armitage tests assessed for trends over time. Social determinants of health (SDH) were compared between approaches. Multinomial logistic models identified predictors of MIPD.

RESULTS

Of 16,468 patients, 80.03 % underwent OPD and 19.97 % underwent MIPD (22.60 % robotic; 77.40 % laparoscopic). Black race negatively predicted LPD (vs white (OR 0.822; 95 % CI 0.701-0.964)). Predictors of RPD included Medicare/other government insurance (vs uninsured or Medicaid (OR 1.660; 95 % CI 1.123-2.454)) and private insurance (vs uninsured or Medicaid (OR 1.597; 95 % CI 1.090-2.340)). Early (2010-2014) vs late (2015-2020) diagnosis, stratified by race, demonstrated an increase in Non-White patients undergoing OPD (13.15 % vs 14.63 %; p = 0.016), but not LPD (11.41 % vs 13.57 %;p = 0.125) or RPD (14.15 % vs 15.23 %; p = 0.774).

CONCLUSION

SDH predict surgical approach more than clinical stage, facility type, or comorbidity status. Disparities in race and insurance coverage are different between surgical approaches.

Trends and disparities in access to minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy (midp): an eight-year analysis from the national cancer database

Laparoscopic and robotic approaches to distal pancreatectomy are becoming the standard of care. The aim of our study was to evaluate the trends of utilization and disparities in access to minimally invasive approaches in distal pancreatectomy. We queried the National Cancer Database (NCDB) and analyzed all the patients who underwent distal pancreatectomy from 2010 to 2017. Patients were divided into groups of those with open distal pancreatectomy (ODP) and those with laparoscopic or robotic distal pancreatectomy (MIDP = minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy). Our outcome measures were trends of MIDP and disparities in access to MIDP. Cochran Armitage trend analysis and multivariate regression analysis were used to evaluate outcomes. A total of 13,537 patients with distal pancreatectomy were identified in the NCDB from 2010 to 2017. 7548 (55.8%) underwent ODP, while 5989 (44.2%) underwent MIDP. The MIDP rates increased from 25% in 2010 to 52% in 2017 (p < 0.01). On regression analysis, when controlled for age, gender, diagnosis, tumor size, grade, staging, and chemoradiotherapy, African American patients were 30% less likely to undergo MIDP than White (OR 0.7, 95% CI [0.5-0.8], p < 0.01). Similarly, Hispanic patients were 25% less likely to undergo MIDP than non-Hispanic patients OR 0.75, 95% CI [0.6-0.9], p = 0.02). Compared to Medicare/private insured patients, uninsured patients were 50% less likely to undergo MIDP (OR 0.5, 95% CI [0.4-0.7], p < 0.01). Based on the medium household income, compared to patients in the fourth quartile, patients in the third quartile OR 0.9, 95% CI [0.3-0.9], p = 0.03). Second OR 0.8, 95%CI [0.5-0.9], p < 0.01), first quartile OR 0.7, 95% CI [0.5-0.8], p < 0.01) were less likely to undergo MIPD as well. Utilization of MIDP has increased from one in every four patients in 2010 to every other patient in 2017. However, African Americans, Hispanics, the uninsured, and those from low-income quartiles are less likely to undergo MIDP. Efforts should be made to ensure access to minimally invasive approches are available to minorities.

Disparities in Receipt of Adjuvant Therapy After Upfront Surgical Resection for Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma

BACKGROUND

A multimodal approach of surgery and chemotherapy, with or without radiation, is the mainstay of therapy with curative-intent for resectable pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC). This study compared utilization trends and outcomes of upfront surgery with and without adjuvant therapy.

METHODS

The National Cancer Database was queried for patients with a diagnosis of stage 1 or 2 PDAC who underwent upfront resection. Multivariable regression was applied to identify factors associated with initiation of adjuvant therapy.

RESULTS

Of the 39,128 patients in the study, 67% initiated adjuvant therapy after resection, whereas 33% received upfront surgery alone. Receipt of adjuvant multimodal therapy increased from 59% in 2006 to 69% in 2017 (P < 0.0001). Non-white race was associated with lower odds of receiving adjuvant therapy after adjustment for income status, education attainment, and other variables (Hispanic/Spanish [odds ratio {OR}, 0.77; 95% confidence interval {CI}, 0.69-0.86] and non-Hispanic black [OR 0.84; 95% CI 0.78-0.91 vs non-Hispanic white; P < 0.001). The variables that contributed to receipt of adjuvant therapy were place of residence in high versus low education attainment area (OR 1.30; 95% CI 1.18-1.44; P < 0.0001) and lower odds for initiation of adjuvant therapy with increasing distance from the treating facility (> 50 miles [OR 0.51; 95% CI 0.47-0.54] vs <12.5 miles; P < 0.0001). The median unadjusted overall survival (OS) time was 18.2 months (95% CI 17.7-18.8 months) for upfront surgery alone and 25.3 months (95% CI 24.9-25.8 months) for surgery with adjuvant therapy.

CONCLUSIONS

The patients who underwent upfront surgical resection for PDAC showed wide socioeconomic disparities in the use of adjuvant therapy independent of insurance status, facility type, or travel distance.

Association of social determinants of health with late diagnosis and survival of patients with pancreatic cancer

Background

Pancreatic cancer disparities have been described. However, it is unknown if they contribute to a late diagnosis and survival of patients with metastatic disease. Identifying their role is important as it will open the door for interventions. We hypothesize that social determinants of health (SDH) such as income, education, race, and insurance status impact (I) stage of diagnosis of PC (Stage IV vs. other stages), and (II) overall survival (OS) in Stage IV patients.

Methods

Using the National Cancer Database, we evaluated a primary outcome of diagnosis of Stage IV PC and a secondary outcome of OS. Primary predictors included race, income, education, and insurance. Covariates included age, sex and Charlson-Deyo comorbidity score. Univariate, multivariable logistic regression models evaluated risk of a late diagnosis. Univariate, multivariable Cox proportional hazards model examined OS. 95% confidence intervals were used.

Results

230,877 patients were included, median age of 68 years (SD 12.1). In univariate analysis, a better education, higher income, and insurance decreased the odds of Stage IV PC, while Black race increased it. In multivariable analysis, education [>93% high-school completion (HSC) vs. <82.4%, OR 0.96 (0.93-0.99)] and insurance [private vs. no, OR 0.72 (0.67-0.74)] significantly decreased the risk of a late diagnosis, whereas Black race increased the odds [vs. White, OR 1.09 (1.07-1.12)]. In univariate Cox analysis, having a higher income, insurance and better education improved OS, while Black race worsened it. In multivariable Cox, higher income [>$63,333 (vs. <$40,277), HR 0.87 (0.85-0.89)] and insurance [private vs. no, HR 0.77 (0.74-0.79)] improved OS.

Conclusions

SDH impacted the continuum of care for patients with advanced pancreatic cancer, including stage at diagnosis and overall survival.

Strengths and Limitations of Registries in Surgical Oncology Research

Over the past two decades, there has been a dramatic increase in studies based on large multi-institutional tumor registries. Applications of such databases span various research themes including epidemiology, oncology, surgical techniques, perioperative outcomes, and prognosis. Although these databases are acquired relatively easily, offer larger sample sizes and improved generalizability compared with institutional data, acknowledging limitations within analysis and cautious interpretation of data is important. Questionable conclusions can result when insufficient attention is paid to issues such as data quality and depth, potential sources of bias and missing data. This article reviews research themes and important limitations of these databases. The contemporary reporting of these issues in the literature and an increased awareness among surgical oncologists of potential applications and limitations will ensure that studies in the surgical oncology literature achieve high standards of methodological quality and clinical utility.

Understanding the Current Role of Robotic-Assisted Bariatric Surgery

BACKGROUND

The role of robotic surgery in bariatrics remains controversial. Patient selection for robotic surgery is not well-studied. The objective of this study was to identify factors associated with robotic surgery and its temporal trends.

METHODS

The Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery Accreditation and Quality Improvement Program database from 2015 to 2018 was used. Adult patients undergoing primary sleeve gastrectomy (SG) and Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) using the laparoscopic or robotic approach were identified. Revisional, hybrid, or those with concomitant procedures were excluded. Logistic regression was conducted to identify factors associated with undergoing robotic-assisted surgery.

RESULTS

Among 211,568 patients who underwent SG, 9.1% underwent a robotic SG; among 76,805 patients who underwent RYGB, 7.9% of patients underwent a robotic RYGB. During 2015-2018, robotics increased from 7.1 to 11.3% for SG and 7.4 to 8.6% for RYGB. After controlling for patient characteristics, there was still an increasing trend in the use of robotic surgery: SG (multivariable-adjusted odds ratio, aOR, 1.18; 95% confidence interval, CI, 1.17-1.20) and RYGB (aOR, 1.05; 95% CI, 1.03-1.08). For both robotic SG and RYGB, functional status and African American race were associated with undergoing robotic surgery, while races other than White or African American and Hispanic ethnicity were not. Pre-operative IVC filter was associated with robotic SG, while the presence of GERD, diabetes, and COPD were associated with robotic RYGB.

CONCLUSIONS

Robotic bariatric surgery has increased over time. Our findings identified factors associated with the receipt of robotic surgery. Reasons for these factors require further investigation to better delineate indications for this technology.

Cancer health disparities in racial/ethnic minorities in the United States

There are well-established disparities in cancer incidence and outcomes by race/ethnicity that result from the interplay between structural, socioeconomic, socio-environmental, behavioural and biological factors. However, large research studies designed to investigate factors contributing to cancer aetiology and progression have mainly focused on populations of European origin. The limitations in clinicopathological and genetic data, as well as the reduced availability of biospecimens from diverse populations, contribute to the knowledge gap and have the potential to widen cancer health disparities. In this review, we summarise reported disparities and associated factors in the United States of America (USA) for the most common cancers (breast, prostate, lung and colon), and for a subset of other cancers that highlight the complexity of disparities (gastric, liver, pancreas and leukaemia). We focus on populations commonly identified and referred to as racial/ethnic minorities in the USA-African Americans/Blacks, American Indians and Alaska Natives, Asians, Native Hawaiians/other Pacific Islanders and Hispanics/Latinos. We conclude that even though substantial progress has been made in understanding the factors underlying cancer health disparities, marked inequities persist. Additional efforts are needed to include participants from diverse populations in the research of cancer aetiology, biology and treatment. Furthermore, to eliminate cancer health disparities, it will be necessary to facilitate access to, and utilisation of, health services to all individuals, and to address structural inequities, including racism, that disproportionally affect racial/ethnic minorities in the USA.

Population demographics in geographic proximity to hospitals with robotic platforms do not correlate with disparities in access to robotic surgery

BACKGROUND

Disparities in access to robotic surgery have been shown on the local, regional, and national level. This study aims to see if the location of hospitals with robotic platforms (HWR) correlates with population trends to explain the disparity in access to robotic surgery.

METHODS

Hospitals with da Vinci surgical systems were identified by compiling data from the publicly available da Vinci surgeon locator website. Demographic, and economic data were compiled. Multivariate logistic regression and place-based analysis were used to determine population characteristics associated with geographic proximity to HWR.

RESULTS

The United States has 1971 HWR (5.93 hospitals with robots per 1 million people). The states with the most HWR are Texas (203), California (175), and Florida (162). Multivariate logistic regression analysis of Texas counties determined population (OR 1.97, 95% CI 1.40-3.38) education level (OR 1.64, 95% CI 1.07-3.21), and urban designation (OR 1.15, 95% CI 1.05-1.31) remained significantly associated with HWR. When applied to a national level, population remained associated with higher numbers of HWR (R = 0.945), however level of education and urbanization were not.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on this study of population-level data, disparities in access to robotic surgery seen in prior literature cannot be explained exclusively by sociodemographic factors related to the geographic proximity of HWR. This suggests other biases are involved in the lack of robotic procedures performed among minority and underprivileged populations.

The impact of individual surgeon on the likelihood of minimal invasive surgery among Medicare beneficiaries undergoing pancreatic resection

BACKGROUND

The objective of the current study was to evaluate the impact of the individual surgeon on the use of minimally invasive pancreatic resection.

METHODS

The Medicare 100% Standard Analytic Files were reviewed to identify Medicare beneficiaries who underwent pancreatic resection between 2013 and 2017. The impact of patient- and procedure-related factors on the likelihood of minimally invasive pancreatic resection was investigated.

RESULTS

A total of 12,652 (85.4%) patients underwent open pancreatic resection, whereas minimally invasive pancreatic resection was performed in 2,155 (14.6%) patients. Unadjusted rates of minimally invasive pancreatic resection ranged from 0% in the bottom volume tertile to 35.3% in the top tertile. Although patients with emergency admission were less likely to undergo minimally invasive pancreatic resection (odds ratio = 0.43, 95% confidence interval 0.32-0.58), patients operated on more recently had a higher chance of minimally invasive pancreatic resection (year 2017; odds ratio = 1.51, 95% confidence interval 1.28-1.79). On multivariable analysis, there was over a 3-fold variation in the odds that a patient underwent minimally invasive versus open pancreatic resection based on the individual surgeon (median odds ratio = 3.27, 95% confidence interval 2.98-3.56). Patients who underwent pancreatectomy by a low-volume, minimally invasive pancreatic resection surgeon had higher odds of 90-day mortality after surgery (odds ratio = 1.33, 95% confidence interval: 1.16-1.59), as well as higher observed/expected mortality compared with individuals treated by high-volume surgeons.

CONCLUSION

The likelihood of undergoing minimally invasive pancreatic resection among Medicare beneficiaries was markedly influenced by the individual treating surgeon rather than patient- or procedure-level factors.

Disparities in Pancreatic Cancer Treatment and Outcomes

Purpose: Pancreatic cancer remains a major health concern; in the next 2 years, it will become the second leading cause of cancer deaths in the United States. Health disparities in the treatment of pancreatic cancer exist across many disciplines, including race and ethnicity, socioeconomic status (SES), and insurance. This narrative review discusses what is known about these disparities, with the goal of highlighting targets for equity promoting interventions.

Methods: We performed a narrative review of health disparities in pancreatic cancer spanning greater than ten areas, including epidemiology, treatment, and outcome, using the PubMed NIH database from 2000 to 2019 in the Unites States.

Results: African Americans (AAs) tend to present at diagnosis with later stage disease. AAs and Hispanics have lower rates of surgical resection, are more likely to be treated at low volume hospitals, and often experience higher rates of morbidity and mortality compared to white patients, although control for confounders is often limited. Insurance and SES also factor into the delivery of treatment for pancreatic cancer.

Conclusion: Disparities by race and SES exist in the diagnosis and treatment of pancreatic cancer that are largely driven by race and SES. Improved understanding of underlying causes could inform interventions.

The oncological safety in minimally invasive versus open distal pancreatectomy for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis

The safety of minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy (MIDP) and open distal pancreatectomy (ODP) regarding oncological outcomes of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) remains inconclusive. Therefore, the aim of this study was to examine the oncological safety of MIDP and ODP for PDAC. Major databases including PubMed, Embase, Science Citation Index Expanded, and the Cochrane Library were searched for studies comparing outcomes in patients undergoing MIDP and ODP for PDAC from January 1994 to August 2018. In total, 11 retrospective comparative studies with 4829 patients (MIDP: 1076, ODP: 3753) were included. The primary outcome was long-term survival, including 3-year overall survival (OS) and 5-year OS. The 3-year OS (hazard ratio (HR): 1.03, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.89, 1.21; P = 0.66) and 5-year OS (HR: 0.91, 95% CI: 0.65, 1.28; P = 0.59) showed no significant differences between the two groups. Furthermore, the positive surgical margin rate (weighted mean difference (WMD): 0.71, 95% CI: 0.56, 0.89, P = 0.003) was lower in the MIDP group. However, patients in the MIDP group had less intraoperative blood loss (WMD: -250.03, 95% CI: -359.68, -140.39; P < 0.00001), a shorter hospital stay (WMD: -2.76, 95% CI: -3.73, -1.78; P < 0.00001) and lower morbidity (OR: 0.57, 95% CI: 0.46, 0.71; P < 0.00001) and mortality (OR: 0.50, 95% CI: 0.31, 0.81, P = 0.005) than patients in the ODP group. The limited evidence suggested that MIDP might be safer with regard to oncological outcomes in PDAC patients. Therefore, future high-quality studies are needed to examine the oncological safety of MIDP.

Disparities in major surgery for esophagogastric cancer among hospitals by case volume

Background

The purpose of this study was to characterize disparities among centers performing major surgery for esophageal or gastric cancer stratified by case volume.

Methods

The National Cancer Data Base (NCDB) was queried for cases of esophagectomy or total gastrectomy. Centers were compared based on number of cases during 2004-2013: low volume [1-99], middle [100-200], and high [>200].

Results

For esophagectomy, 17,547 patients were included; 73.5% were treated in low volume centers, 14.6% in middle, and 11.9% in high. For gastrectomy, 20,059 patients were included, with 87.5%, 8.3%, and 4.3%, respectively. Patients treated at low volume centers were more likely to be of racial/ethnic minorities, uninsured, and have lower socioeconomic status. Overall survival (OS) was superior for patients treated at high volume centers. On multivariable analysis for either procedure, a higher number of disparate factors was identified in the low and middle volume centers compared to the high volume centers, which were associated with poorer OS.

Conclusions

This study identified higher numbers of disparate patient factors associated with low/middle volume centers compared to high volume centers, which were associated with worse OS, and further makes the case for performance of esophagectomy and total gastrectomy at high volume centers.