Canavan, Maureen

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 Several studies have shown improved outcomes in closed compared with open medical and surgical intensive care units. However, very little is known about the ideal organizational structure in the modern cardiac intensive care unit (CICU). Methods and Results We retrospectively reviewed consecutive unique admissions (n=3996) to our tertiary care CICU from September 2013 to October 2017. The aim of our study was to assess for differences in clinical outcomes between an open compared with a closed CICU. We used multivariable logistic regression adjusting for demographics, comorbidities, and severity of illness. The primary outcome was in‐hospital mortality. We identified 2226 patients in the open unit and 1770 in the closed CICU. The unadjusted in‐hospital mortality in the open compared with closed unit was 9.6% and 8.9%, respectively ( P =0.42). After multivariable adjustment, admission to the closed unit was associated with a lower in‐hospital mortality (odds ratio [OR], 0.69; 95% CI: 0.53–0.90, P =0.007) and CICU mortality (OR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.52–0.94, P =0.02). In subgroup analysis, admissions for cardiac arrest (OR, 0.42; 95% CI, 0.20–0.88, P =0.02) and respiratory insufficiency (OR, 0.43; 95% CI, 0.22–0.82, P =0.01) were also associated with a lower in‐hospital mortality in the closed unit. We did not find a difference in CICU length of stay or total hospital charges ( P >0.05). Conclusions We found an association between lower in‐hospital and CICU mortality after the transition to a closed CICU. These results may help guide the ongoing redesign in other tertiary care CICUs.