Gusani, Niraj J.

Background: Increased facility surgical treatment volume is sometimes associated with improved survival in patients with cancer; however, published studies evaluating volume are heterogeneous and disparate in their patient inclusion and definition of volume. The purpose of this work was to evaluate uniformly the impact of surgical facility volume on survival in patients with cancer. Methods: The National Cancer Database was searched for patients diagnosed in 2004 through 2013 with the 12 cancers most commonly treated surgically. Facilities were stratified by 4 categories using the overall population (low, intermediate, high, and very high), each including 25% of patients, and then stratified by each individual disease site. Five-year postsurgery survival was estimated using both the Kaplan-Meier method and corresponding log-rank tests for group comparisons. Cox proportional hazard models were used to evaluate the effects of facility volume on 5-year postsurgery survival further, adjusted for multiple covariates. Results: A total of 3,923,618 patients who underwent surgery were included from 1,139 facilities. Of these, 40.4% had breast cancer, 12.8% prostate cancer, and 10.0% colon cancer. Most patients were female (65.0%), White (86.4%), and privately insured (51.6%) with stage 0–III disease (64.8%). For all cancers, the risk of death for patients undergoing surgery at very high-volume facilities was 88% of that for those treated at low-volume facilities. Hazard ratios (HRs) were greatest (very high vs low volume) for cancer of the prostate (HR, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.63–0.69), pancreas (HR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.71–0.78), and esophagus (HR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.73–0.83), and for melanoma (HR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.78–0.84); differences were smallest for uterine and non–small cell lung cancers. Overall survival differences were greatest for cancers of the brain, pancreas, and esophagus. Conclusions: Patients treated surgically at higher-volume facilities consistently had improved overall survival compared with those treated at low-volume centers, although the magnitude of difference was cancer-specific.

Objectives: Metastatic cancer has historically been considered fatal; however, there is a paucity of evidence characterizing the epidemiology of incidence, treatment, and outcomes in these patients. Materials and Methods: Incidence rates, annual percent change (APC), descriptive epidemiological statistics, and odds ratios for survival were calculated using registry data from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) and the National Cancer Database (NCDB), 1998 to 2015. Results: There were a total of 1,055,860 patients with metastatic cancer. The most frequent primary cancers were lung (42.6%), colorectal (9.5%), and ovarian (5.5%). Metastatic lung and colorectal cancer incidence decreased, APC: −1.57 (P<0.001) and APC: −1.48 (P<0.001), respectively; metastatic pancreatic cancer incidence increased, APC: 0.62 (P=0.001). The use of local therapies decreased for almost all sites, and the use of systemic therapies increased across multiple sites: single-agent chemotherapy in kidney (2.54% increase/year), female breast (1.14% increase/year), and prostate cancer (1.08% increase/year); multiagent chemotherapy, most notably in pancreas (2.23% increase/year), uterus (1.81% increase/year), and colorectal cancer (1.54% increase/year). Increased utilization of immunotherapy was observed across the majority of sites, most notably in melanoma (2.14% increase/year). Patients diagnosed from 2006 to 2010 had 17.4% higher odds of surviving at least 60 months compared with 1998 to 2002. Conclusions: In this study, metastatic disease has been shown to have unique epidemiological patterns, and survival has improved. Continued research on metastatic disease is important in understanding and addressing the distinct health concerns of this population.

Background The goal of this study was to characterize the efficacy and safety of stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) versus conventionally fractionated radiation therapy with concurrent chemotherapy (CFRT) for the definitive treatment of locally advanced pancreatic cancer. The primary outcome measure was efficacy, defined by 2‐year overall survival (OS). Secondary outcomes were incidence of any grade 3/4 toxicity and 1‐year OS. Methods A PICOS/PRISMA/MOOSE selection protocol was used to identify eligible studies. Inclusion criteria were: 1) patients diagnosed with locally advanced N0‐1 M0 pancreatic cancer; 2) CFRT 1.8 to 2.0 Gy/fraction with chemotherapy per protocol or SBRT ≥5 Gy/fraction in ≤5 fractions; 3) either no control group or another definitive chemotherapy or radiation therapy arm; 4) at least 1 of the outcome measures reported; and 5) single or multi‐arm phase 2/3 prospective study for CFRT and/or phase 1/2 or retrospective study for SBRT. Neoadjuvant and/or adjuvant chemotherapy was prescribed per protocol specifications. Weighted random effects meta‐analyses were conducted using the DerSimonian and Laird method to characterize summary effect sizes for each outcome. Results A total of 470 studies were initially screened; of these, 9 studies assessed SBRT and 11 studies assessed CFRT. For SBRT, the median dose was 30 Gy, and the most common regimen was 30 Gy/5 fractions. For CFRT, doses ranged from 45 to 54 Gy in 1.8‐ to 2.0‐Gy fractions, with the majority of studies delivering 50.4 Gy in 28 fractions with concurrent gemcitabine. The random effects estimate for 2‐year OS was 26.9% (95% CI, 20.6%‐33.6%) for SBRT versus 13.7% (95% CI, 8.9%‐19.3%) for CFRT and was statistically significant in favor of SBRT. The random effects estimate for 1‐year OS was 53.7% (95% CI, 39.3%‐67.9%) for SBRT versus 49.3% (95% CI, 39.3%‐59.4%) for CFRT, and was not statistically significant. The random effects estimate for acute grade 3/4 toxicity was 5.6% (95% CI, 0.0%‐20.0%) for SBRT versus 37.7% (95% CI, 24.0%‐52.5%) for CFRT and was statistically significant in favor of SBRT. The random effects estimate for late grade 3/4 toxicity was 9.0% for SBRT (95% CI, 3.3%‐17.1%) versus 10.1% (95% CI, 1.8%‐23.8%) for CFRT, which was not statistically significant. Conclusion These results suggest that SBRT for LAPC may result in a modest improvement in 2‐year OS with decreased rates of acute grade 3/4 toxicity and no change in 1‐year‐OS or late toxicity. Further study into the use of stereotactic body radiation therapy for these patients is needed.

Multiple organizations around the world have issued evidence‐based exercise guidance for patients with cancer and cancer survivors. Recently, the American College of Sports Medicine has updated its exercise guidance for cancer prevention as well as for the prevention and treatment of a variety of cancer health‐related outcomes (eg, fatigue, anxiety, depression, function, and quality of life). Despite these guidelines, the majority of people living with and beyond cancer are not regularly physically active. Among the reasons for this is a lack of clarity on the part of those who work in oncology clinical settings of their role in assessing, advising, and referring patients to exercise. The authors propose using the American College of Sports Medicine's Exercise Is Medicine initiative to address this practice gap. The simple proposal is for clinicians to assess, advise, and refer patients to either home‐based or community‐based exercise or for further evaluation and intervention in outpatient rehabilitation. To do this will require care coordination with appropriate professionals as well as change in the behaviors of clinicians, patients, and those who deliver the rehabilitation and exercise programming. Behavior change is one of many challenges to enacting the proposed practice changes. Other implementation challenges include capacity for triage and referral, the need for a program registry, costs and compensation, and workforce development. In conclusion, there is a call to action for key stakeholders to create the infrastructure and cultural adaptations needed so that all people living with and beyond cancer can be as active as is possible for them.

Purpose: We aim to systematically review and analyze the available literature on “exceptional responders” in oncology. We hypothesize that survival or patients with an exceptional response may be predicted based on clinical factors. Materials and Methods: A PICOS/PRISMA/MOOSE selection protocol was used to find studies that reported oncology patients with an exceptional response. A total of 333 initial articles were screened, and 76 articles were included, accounting for 85 patients. The primary outcome was survival after exceptional response therapy (ERT). The secondary outcome was survival since diagnosis. Univariate and multivariate analyses were conducted for both outcomes with 17 covariates. Results: The median age was 52 years (interquartile range, 35-66 y), 51.8% were male individuals, 18 (21.2%) had lung cancer, and 1 patient (1%) met all National Cancer Institute criteria for exceptional response. The most common treatment resulting in exceptional response was a form of chemotherapy (49.2%) followed by targeted therapy (26.8%) and radiation therapy (7.7%). The median time from diagnosis to initiation of ERT was 7.92 months (interquartile range, 0-24.72 mo). On multivariate analysis of survival after initiation of ERT, there were no predictors of exceptional response. On multivariate analysis of survival since diagnosis, predictors of prolonged survival included time between diagnosis and ERT initiation (hazard ratio, 0.52; 95% confidence interval, 0.32-0.87; P=0.0124) and single prior surgery versus none (0.08; 95% confidence interval, 0.01-0.98; P=0.04853). Conclusions: There were no clinically apparent patient or treatment factors that predicted favorable survival following ERT; instead, reporting of exceptional response appears to be biased.