Is Treatment at a High-volume Center Associated with an Improved Survival for Primary Malignant Bone Tumors?

Survival analysis of the metastatic cohort of Italian Association of Medical Oncology (AIOM) GARIBALDI survey

This analysis from the GARIBALDI study was aimed to address the role of center self-declared expertise, type and commitment on the overall survival (OS) of patients with metastatic Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma (mPDAC). Treatment-naïve patients ≥18-year with pathological diagnosis of mPDAC were enrolled. OS was defined as the time from chemotherapy start to death from any cause. The impact of clinical-demographic and centers characteristics on OS was evaluated using Cox models. Between July 2017 and October 2019, 473 patients enrolled in 43 centers were eligible for this analysis. Median age was 69.3 (first-third quartile 61.2-74.5); 46.1 % females; 90.8 % ECOG PS 0-1; 67.4 % had liver metastases; median CA19.9700.5 UI/mL (first-third quartile 77.5-6629.5). For 37.1 % of patients chemotherapy started <4 weeks from diagnosis; 69.9 % of patients received nab-paclitaxel + gemcitabine; 16.9 % gemcitabine alone; 7.6 % FOLFIRINOX. The median follow-up was 51.8 months and 428 patients died. No statistically significant role of the type of institution was observed. Additionally, no statistically significant role of neither the self-declared expertise nor the accrual rate was observed. The GARIBALDI study suggests that the self-declared center expertise and the academic brand are not associated to OS in patients with mPDAC, while center commitment warrants further exploration.

Trends in Case Volume Reported by Musculoskeletal Oncology Fellows in Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education-Accredited Training Programs: 2017 to 2022

INTRODUCTION

Increasingly, national accrediting bodies and professional societies for musculoskeletal oncology recognize the need for more standardized training. This study elucidates recent trends in reported case volume during Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME)-accredited musculoskeletal oncology fellowship training relative to case minimum requirements.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective cross-sectional analysis of fellows at ACGME-accredited musculoskeletal oncology fellowships (2017 to 2022). Percentiles in reported case volumes were calculated across ACGME-defined case categories and temporal changes assessed by linear regression. Variability between the highest (90th percentile) and lowest (10th percentile) deciles was calculated as fold differences. Sensitivity analyses were conducted to estimate the number of fellows not meeting ACGME-defined case minimum requirements.

RESULTS

Case logs from 95 musculoskeletal oncology fellows were analyzed. From 2017 to 2022, total relevant oncology procedures increased from 191 ± 49 to 228 ± 73 (P = 0.066). Pediatric oncology accounted for a minority of cases (range, 6 to 8%). A mean of 222 total relevant oncology procedures were reported. Most were in management of metastatic disease (21%), soft-tissue resection/reconstruction (20%), and limb salvage (13%). Variability in total relevant oncology procedures was 2.6 and greatest in spine/pelvis (4.6), pediatric oncologic cases (4.4), and surgical management of complications (4.4). No clear trends were observed in case volume variability over the study period (P > 0.05). Analysis of case volume percentiles identified at least 30% of musculoskeletal oncology fellows not achieving minimum requirements for pediatric oncologic cases (n = 29 fellows) and 10% of fellows not achieving minimum requirements for total relevant oncology procedures (n = 10 fellows).

DISCUSSION

Results from this study may help future musculoskeletal oncology fellows and faculty identify potential areas to increase case exposure and reduce variability during fellowship training. More investigation is needed to determine evidence-based case minimum requirements including surgical learning curves and other competency-based assessment tools in musculoskeletal oncology.

Exploring external validity of chemotherapy for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma in real life

INTRODUCTION

Cisplatin, nab-paclitaxel, capecitabine, and gemcitabine (PAXG) regimen activity was assessed in a single institution phase II trial (PACT-19) on pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC). The PACT-31 study explored the external validity of PACT-19 results.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Patients aged ≥18 and ≤75 years with KPS ≥70, and PDAC diagnosis receiving PAXG in the participating institutions were eligible and categorized as follows: A) PACT-19; B) PACT-31-HSR; C) PACT-31-non-HSR. With a sample of 175 patients, assuming a target 1-year overall survival of 60 % for metastatic and of 80 % for non-metastatic patients, the trial will be considered successful with the 1-year OS falling into the 95 % CI.

RESULTS

Data from 68 PACT-19 and 168 PACT-31 patients were retrieved. After 124 events, 1yOS was 52.5 % (95 %CI: 44.6-60.4 %) for metastatic and 80.5 % (95 %CI: 71.9-89.1 %) for non-metastatic patients. Survival overlapped between PACT-19 and PACT-31-HSR (median 17.6 and 17.4 months, p = 0.21) and was significantly shorter in PACT-31-non-HSR (median 11.3 months; p = 0.03). Differences of dose-intensity, use of maintenance therapy, and treatment after progression between PACT-31-HSR and non-HSR were evidenced.

DISCUSSION

PACT-19 results have external validity. The outcome difference between HSR and non-HSR centers endorses the need of creating a hub-and-spoke network aimed at sharing the expertise on rare-diseases.

Limited Generalizability of Retrospective Single-Center Cohort Study in Comparison to Multicenter Cohort Study on Prognosis of Hepatocellular Carcinoma

Introduction

We aimed to evaluate the generalizability of retrospective single-center cohort studies on prognosis of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) by comparing overall survival (OS) after various treatments between a nationwide multicenter cohort and a single-center cohort of HCC patients.

Methods

Patients newly diagnosed with HCC between January 2008 and December 2018 were analyzed using data from the Korean Primary Liver Cancer Registry (multicenter cohort, n=16,443), and the Asan Medical Center HCC registry (single-center cohort, n=15,655). The primary outcome, OS after initial treatment, was compared between the two cohorts for both the entire population and for subcohorts with Child-Pugh A liver function (n=2797 and n=5151, respectively) treated according to the Barcelona-Clinic-Liver-Cancer (BCLC) strategy, using Log rank test and Cox proportional hazard models.

Results

Patients of BCLC stages 0 and A (59.3% vs 35.2%) and patients who received curative treatment (42.1% vs 32.1%) were more frequently observed in the single-center cohort (Ps<0.001). Multivariable analysis revealed significant differences between the two cohorts in OS according to type of treatment: the multicenter cohort was associated with higher risk of mortality among patients who received curative (adjusted hazard ratio [95% confidence interval], 1.48 [1.39-1.59]) and non-curative (1.22 [1.17-1.27]) treatments, whereas the risk was lower in patients treated with systemic therapy (0.83 [0.74-0.92]) and best supportive care (0.85 [0.79-0.91]). Subcohort analysis also demonstrated significantly different OS between the two cohorts, with a higher risk of mortality in multicenter cohort patients who received chemoembolization (1.72 [1.48-2.00]) and ablation (1.44 [1.08-1.92]).

Conclusion

Comparisons of single-center and multicenter cohorts of HCC patients revealed significant differences in OS according to treatment modality after adjustment for prognostic variables. Therefore, the results of retrospective single-center cohort studies of HCC treatments may not be generalizable to real-world practice.

Optimizing Interhospital Transfers in Orthopedics and Trauma Surgery: Challenges, Insights, and Proposals for Standardized Care in Germany

BACKGROUND

Germany's high density of under-equipped hospitals and anticipated surge in orthopedic and trauma surgery-related diseases by 2030, combined with personnel shortages, are expected to increase patient transfers between hospitals, an issue that urgently needs standardized protocols. Despite some existing cooperative agreements, such as between joint-replacement centers or within the Trauma Network DGU®, these measures do not adequately address the full range of patient-transfer cases, including those due to a lack of specialization or staff shortages, resulting in delayed treatment and potential health risks. This study aims to dissect the intricacies of interhospital transfers in orthopedics and trauma surgery across Germany, focusing on understanding the underlying reasons for transfers, comparing the operational structures of small and large hospitals, and laying the groundwork for future standardized protocols to enhance patient care.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A cross-sectional study was conducted in the form of an online survey via SoSci Survey, which was directed at orthopedic surgeons and trauma surgeons working in hospitals in Germany. The 22-question survey gathered information on participants' clinic roles, departmental details, transfer processes, frequent diagnoses, perceptions of transfer quality, and improvement areas. The survey was sent to orthopedic and trauma surgeons in Germany by the specialist society. The data were analyzed using descriptive and inferential statistics to ensure a comprehensive insight into interhospital transfer practices.

RESULTS

The study involved 152 participants from various hospital ranks and located in different hospital sizes and types across rural and urban areas. A significant difference was observed between the care structures of basic/regular care and central/maximum care hospitals, especially regarding the available facilities and specialties. These findings suggest improvements such as better patient documentation, increased digital communication, optimized patient distribution, and standardization of transfer requests, among others.

CONCLUSIONS

This study highlights the urgent need for improved protocols and resource allocation to eliminate inequalities in transfers between hospitals in orthopedics and trauma surgery in Germany.

Hospital factors determining overall survival in cancer patients undergoing curative treatment

BACKGROUND

In oncology, overall survival (OS) and quality of life (QoL) are key indicators. The factors that affect OS and QoL include tumor-related characteristics (stage and grade), patient-related factors (performance status and comorbidities), and cancer-directed therapy (CDT)-related aspects. In addition, external factors such as governance or policy (e.g., inaccessibility to CDT, increased distance to service, poor socioeconomic status, lack of insurance), and hospital-related factors (e.g., facility volume and surgeon volume) can influence OS and QoL.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The primary objective of this narrative review was to identify hospital-related factors that affect OS and QoL in patients receiving curative CDT. The authors defined extrinsic factors that can be modified at the hospital level as "hospital-related" factors. Only factors supported by randomized controlled trials (RCT), systematic reviews (SR) and/or meta-analyses (MA), and population database (PDB) analyses that address the relationship between OS and hospital factors were considered.

RESULTS

The literature review found that high hospital or oncologist volume, adherence to evidence-based medicine (EBM), optimal time-to-treatment initiation (TTI), and decreased overall treatment time (OTT) increase OS in patients undergoing curative CDT. The use of case management strategies was associated with better symptom management and treatment compliance, but had a mixed effect on QoL. The practice of enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) in cancer patients did not result in an increase in OS. There was insufficient evidence to support the impact of factors such as teaching or academic centers, hospital infrastructure, and treatment compliance on OS and QoL.

CONCLUSION

The authors conclude that hospital policies should focus on increasing hospital and oncologist volume, adhering to EBM, optimizing TTI, and reducing OTT for cancer patients receiving curative treatment.

Surgery at specialised sarcoma centres improves patient outcomes - A systematic review by the Australia and New Zealand sarcoma association clinical practice guidelines working party

BACKGROUND

Optimal management of sarcoma requires multidisciplinary team input throughout the process of diagnosis, treatment and follow up. This systematic review aimed to evaluate the impact of surgery performed at specialised sarcoma centres on outcomes.

METHODS

A systematic review was conducted using the population, intervention, comparison and outcome (PICO) model. Medline, Embase, Cochrane Central databases were queried for publications that evaluated the local control, limb salvage rate, 30-day and 90-day surgical mortality, and overall survival in patients undergoing surgery in a specialist sarcoma centre compared with non-specialist centre. Each study was screened by two independent reviewers for suitability. A qualitative synthesis of the results was performed.

RESULTS

Sixty-six studies were identified. The majority of studies were Level III-3 as assessed by the NHMRC Evidence Hierarchy, whilst just over half of the studies were of good quality. Definitive surgery performed at specialised sarcoma centres was associated with improved local control as defined by lower rate of local relapse, higher rate of negative surgical margins, improved local recurrence free survival and higher limb conservation rate. Available evidences show a favourable pattern of lower 30-day and 90-day mortality rates, and greater overall survival when surgery was performed in specialist sarcoma centres compared with non-specialised centres.

CONCLUSIONS

Evidences support better oncological outcomes when surgery is performed at specialised sarcoma centre. Patients with suspected sarcoma should be referred early to a specialised sarcoma centre for multidisciplinary management, which includes planned biopsy and definitive surgery.

Survival Outcomes of Ewing Sarcoma and Rhabdomyosarcoma by High- versus Low-Volume Cancer Centres in British Columbia, Canada

Due to the rarity and complexity of treatment for Ewing sarcoma and rhabdomyosarcoma, studies demonstrate improved patient outcomes when managed by a multidisciplinary team at high-volume centres (HVCs). Our study explores the difference in outcomes of Ewing sarcoma and rhabdomyosarcoma patients based on the centre of initial consultation in British Columbia, Canada. This retrospective study assessed adults diagnosed with Ewing sarcoma and rhabdomyosarcoma between 1 January 2000 and 31 December 2020 undergoing curative intent therapy in one of five cancer centres across the province. Seventy-seven patients were included, 46 seen at HVCs and 31 at low-volume centres (LVCs). Patients at HVCs were younger (32.1 vs. 40.8 years, p = 0.020) and more likely to receive curative intent radiation (88% vs. 67%, p = 0.047). The time from diagnosis to first chemotherapy was 24 days shorter at HVCs (26 vs. 50 days, p = 0.120). There was no significant difference in overall survival by treatment centre (HR 0.850, 95% CI 0.448-1.614). Variations in care exist amongst patients treated at HVCs vs. LVCs, which may reflect differences in access to resources, clinical specialists, and varying practice patterns across centres. This study can be used to inform decisions regarding triaging and centralization of Ewing sarcoma and rhabdomyosarcoma patient treatment.

County Rurality is Associated with Increased Tumor Size and Decreased Survival in Patients with Ewing Sarcoma

Background

Ewing Sarcoma (ES) is an aggressive tumor affecting adolescents and young adults. Prior studies investigated the association between rurality and outcomes, although there is a paucity of literature focusing on ES.

Objective

This study aims to determine whether ES patients in rural areas are subject to adverse outcomes.

Methods

This study utilized the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database. A Poisson regression model was used with controls for race, sex, median county income, and age to determine the association between rurality and tumor size. A multivariate Cox Proportional Hazard Model was utilized, controlling for age, race, gender, income, and tumor size.

Results

There were 868 patients eligible for analysis, with a mean age of 14.14 years. Of these patients, 97 lived in rural counties (11.18%). Metropolitan areas had a 9.50% smaller tumor size (p<0.0001), compared to non-metropolitan counties. Patients of Black race had a 14.32% larger tumor size (p<0.0001), and male sex was associated with a 15.34% larger tumor size (p<0.0001). The Cox Proportional Hazard model estimated that metropolitan areas had a 36% lower risk of death over time, compared to non-metropolitan areas (HR: 0.64, p ≤ 0.04).

Conclusion

Patients in metropolitan areas had a smaller tumor size at time of diagnosis and had a more favorable survival rate for cancer-specific mortality compared to patients residing in rural areas. Further work is needed to examine interventions to reduce this discrepancy and investigate the effect of extremely rural and urban settings and why racial disparities occur.

The benefit for radiotherapy at specialised sarcoma centres: A systematic review and clinical practice guidelines from the Australia and New Zealand Sarcoma Association

Patients with sarcoma are best managed at specialised sarcoma centres as supported by published literature. Optimal management requires multidisciplinary team input to formulate the diagnosis and treatment sequencing taking into consideration multiple clinical and pathologic factors. This systematic review aimed to evaluate the impact on outcomes of radiotherapy at specialised sarcoma centres. A systematic review was conducted using the population, intervention, comparison and outcome model. A literature search was performed using Medline, Embase, Cochrane Central databases for publications from 1990 to February 2022 that evaluated the local control, survival and toxicity of radiotherapy at specialised sarcoma centres. A total of 21 studies were included (17 cancer registry studies, four retrospective comparative studies). Four studies reported the local recurrence endpoint when radiotherapy was part of limb conservation treatment and showed better conformity to clinical practice guidelines and an improved local recurrence free rate when radiotherapy treatment is supported through, but may not be necessarily delivered at a specialised sarcoma centres. Only one retrospective study analysed toxicity specifically and demonstrated that patients who received preoperative radiotherapy at community centres compared to radiotherapy at a specialised sarcoma centre were more likely to develop a major wound complication. Fourteen studies reported overall survival, and 12 of these showed significantly better 5-year overall survival for patients managed at specialised sarcoma centres, however the specific impact of radiotherapy delivered at sarcoma centres could not be determined. In conclusion, patients with sarcoma should be managed through specialised sarcoma centres for better oncological outcomes. Radiotherapy in specialised sarcoma centre is associated with a lower rate of wound complications and may contribute to improved oncological outcomes as part of the limb conservation treatment at a specialised sarcoma centre.

Surgical Treatment of Bone Sarcoma

Bone sarcomas are rare primary malignant mesenchymal bone tumors. The three main entities are osteosarcoma, chondrosarcoma, and Ewing sarcoma. While prognosis has improved for affected patients over the past decades, bone sarcomas are still critical conditions that require an interdisciplinary diagnostic and therapeutic approach. While radiotherapy plays a role especially in Ewing sarcoma and chemotherapy in Ewing sarcoma and osteosarcoma, surgery remains the main pillar of treatment in all three entities. After complete tumor resection, the created bone defects need to be reconstructed. Possible strategies are implantation of allografts or autografts including vascularized bone grafts (e.g., of the fibula). Around the knee joint, rotationplasty can be performed or, as an alternative, the implantation of (expandable) megaprostheses can be performed. Challenges still associated with the implantation of foreign materials are aseptic loosening and infection. Future improvements may come with advances in 3D printing of individualized resection blades/implants, thus also securing safe tumor resection margins while at the same time shortening the required surgical time. Faster osseointegration and lower infection rates may possibly be achieved through more elaborate implant surface structures.

The influence of facility volume on patient treatments and survival outcomes in nasopharyngeal carcinoma

BACKGROUND

This study evaluates the influence of facility case-volume on nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC) treatments and overall survival (OS).

METHODS

The 2004-2015 National Cancer Database was queried for patients with NPC receiving definitive treatment.

RESULTS

A total of 8260 patients (5-year OS: 63.4%) were included. The 1114 unique facilities were categorized into 854 low-volume (treating 1-8 patients), 200 intermediate-volume (treating 9-23 patients), and 60 high-volume (treating 24-187 patients) facilities. Kaplan-Meier log-rank analysis demonstrated significantly improved OS with high-volume facilities (p < 0.001). On cox proportional-hazard multivariate regression after adjusting for age, sex, income, insurance, comorbidity index, histology, AJCC clinical stage, and treatment type, high-volume facilities were associated with lower mortality risk than low-volume (HR = 0.865, p = 0.019) and intermediate-volume facilities (HR = 0.916, p = 0.004). Propensity score matching analysis confirmed this association (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Higher facility volume was an independent predictor of improved OS in NPC, suggesting a possible survival benefit of referrals to high-volume medical centers.