Boffa, Daniel J.

BACKGROUND: The National Cancer Database (NCDB) captures 73.7% of newly diagnosed cancers in the USs and underpins thousands of outcomes studies informing oncologic practice. To remain relevant amid rapid therapeutic and policy changes, the NCDB has undergone substantial structural and variable-level revisions. We characterized major updates during the past decade and their implications for research. STUDY DESIGN: We performed a narrative review of annual NCDB data dictionary revisions, American College of Surgeons bulletins, and internal program updates in collaboration with NCDB leadership. Structural modifications, variable additions, and policy changes affecting data capture, follow-up, staging, and accessibility were systematically summarized. RESULTS: The NCDB now includes data from 1,413 Commission on Cancer–accredited hospitals and more than 55 million records. Since 2020, the Rapid Cancer Reporting System enables near–real-time monthly submissions. Embargo periods were reduced from 5 to 3 years for survival data and 2 years for other variables, increasing analytic timeliness. Follow-up was limited to 15 years beginning January 1, 2022. Variable refinements include continuous tumor size in millimeters (since 2016), separation of tumor grade into clinical, pathologic, and posttherapy fields (since 2018), phased radiation treatment reporting (since 2018), and American Joint Committee on Cancer eighth edition staging implementation in January 2018 with nineth edition rollout ongoing. New data elements include Medicaid expansion status (2020), COVID-19 variables (2020 to 2021; 12.4% reduction in cases in 2020), smoking status (2023), and planned programmed death-ligand 1 reporting for non–small cell lung cancer beginning in 2025. CONCLUSIONS: The NCDB has evolved toward more granular, contemporary, and policy-relevant data capture while maintaining broad national coverage. Investigators must account for staging transitions, variable maturation, follow-up limits, and registry-specific biases to ensure valid interpretation of NCDB-based research.

BACKGROUND: The Commission on Cancer (CoC) implemented 6 operative standards to reduce technical variation in cancer surgery. Although designed to guide surgeons in performing key oncologic techniques, these standards also provide a framework for teaching high-quality cancer surgery to trainees. We assessed surgical trainees’ familiarity with the CoC Operative Standards and the underlying principles of cancer surgery to identify knowledge gaps and opportunities for improved education. STUDY DESIGN: The American College of Surgeons Cancer Surgery Standards Program distributed an anonymous survey to general surgery residents and surgical fellows across the US. Questions addressed the CoC Operative Standards and cancer surgery principles, with scores calculated on the basis of correctness. Univariate logistic regression evaluated associations between trainee or program characteristics and knowledge. Trainees were also asked about their role in procedural documentation, given the synoptic operative report requirements of the standards. RESULTS: A total of 244 surveys were completed by 205 residents and 39 fellows. Fellows reported greater familiarity with the CoC Operative Standards (68% vs 24%, p < 0.001). Only 30% of trainees reported receiving a formal curriculum on the standards. Correct response rates were 30% for CoC Operative Standards questions vs 50% for cancer surgery principles, with minimal association between knowledge and trainee or program characteristics. Most residents (71%) reported contributing to operative documentation. CONCLUSIONS: Surgical trainees demonstrated limited knowledge of the CoC Operative Standards, highlighting the need for multifaceted educational strategies at the national and institutional levels. Incorporating education about the CoC Operative Standards into surgical training can help emphasize the importance of performing and documenting critical elements of cancer operations.

BACKGROUND: To reduce technical variation in cancer surgery, the Commission on Cancer (CoC) recently implemented 6 operative standards as part of its national cancer center accreditation process. CoC sites are evaluated for compliance with these standards through scheduled visits conducted by trained site reviewers. We characterized site reviewers’ perspectives on the implementation of the operative standards. STUDY DESIGN: Twenty interviews were conducted with CoC site reviewers using a semistructured interview guide based on the Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation, and Maintenance framework. Themes were identified using thematic analysis mapped to the updated Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research. RESULTS: Site reviewers viewed the operative standards as an effective starting point for improving technical quality and were optimistic the standards would lead to positive change. Compliance was associated with supportive site leadership, effective interdisciplinary communication, and the availability of adequate personnel and institutional resources. In contrast, resistance from surgeons was identified as a key barrier. CoC site reviewers interpret their role as extending beyond assessing compliance, viewing themselves as advocates, educators, and partners to the sites. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, CoC site reviewers perceive the operative standards favorably. To enhance implementation of the operative standards, efforts should focus on modifiable institutional and individual-level factors, such as leadership support and surgeon engagement. Additionally, the multifaceted role of the site reviewers presents a valuable opportunity to improve compliance by formalizing the supportive relationship between reviewers and sites.

2022 Background: Studies have suggested superior outcomes for patients with cancer treated at National Cancer Institute (NCI) and academic hospitals, leading some to advocate for complex cancer care to be delivered at regional referral centers. However, growing demand at such centers may exceed their capacity to provide timely treatment, which could be detrimental to patient outcomes. We evaluated the relationship between hospital type, the average annual growth rate in patient volume (PV), and time to treatment initiation (TTI) trends. Methods: We used the National Cancer Database to identify patients undergoing initial treatment for a new diagnosis of cancer (breast, lung, prostate, colorectal, melanoma, bladder, non-Hodgkin lymphoma, renal, uterine or pancreatic) in 2007-2016. The exposure was hospital type (NCI, academic, community or integrated network). The primary outcome was TTI over time. We estimated both the average annual growth rate for PV and adjusted TTI trends by hospital type using linear mixed effects models, including a hospital type-by-time interaction and, when modeling TTI, a patient volume-by-time interaction. Results: We identified 4,218,577 patients treated at 1351 hospitals (49% at 897 community, 23% at 177 academic, 14% at 50 NCI and 14% at 227 integrated network hospitals). Over the study period, PV grew by 40% at NCI and 25% at academic hospitals, compared to 8% at community hospitals (p-value for trend both < 0.001). Meanwhile, mean TTI increased by 3.2 days at community, remained stable at academic (+0.3 days) and decreased by 4.3 days at NCI hospitals (p-value for trend both < 0.001 vs community). A higher annual PV growth rate was associated with a statistically but not clinically significant TTI increase (0.05 days for each 100 patient/year increase in the growth rate, p = 0.001). Conclusions: Patients with newly diagnosed cancer are increasingly receiving treatment at NCI and academic hospitals. While TTI at NCI and academic hospitals is longer than in the community, PV growth has been possible without delaying cancer treatment. Further study is needed to determine whether continued growth at this rate is sustainable. [Table: see text]