Dossett, Lesly A.

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.

ImportanceThe American College of Surgeons (ACS) operative standards were established to detail critical elements of cancer surgery, reduce technical variation, and improve outcomes. Two of the 6 operative standards target adequate axillary surgery for breast cancer. The potential association of the operative standards with short-term oncologic outcomes, such as nodal yield and nodal positivity rates, is currently unknown.ObjectiveTo evaluate the potential association of the ACS operative standards with short-term oncologic outcomes in breast cancer.Design, Setting, and ParticipantsA cohort study was performed using data on 1 201 317 women 18 years or older who underwent sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) or axillary lymph node dissection (ALND) for invasive breast cancer from January 1, 2012, to December 31, 2020. Patients were identified using the National Cancer Database (NCDB), a clinical oncology database encompassing approximately 70% of new cancer diagnoses, sourced from hospital registry data from 1317 facilities. Statistical analysis was performed from October 2023 to June 2024.ExposureSentinel lymph node biopsy or ALND.Main Outcomes and MeasuresReliability-adjusted facility-level lymph node yield and nodal positivity rate for each procedure were calculated using generalized linear mixed models, Poisson regression, and logistic regression with facility-level random intercepts.ResultsThe cohort included 1 201 317 women with a median age of 62 years (IQR, 53-70 years). Facility-level nodal yield ranged from 1 to 6 for SLNB and from 6 to 22 for ALND. Median facility-level nodal yield for SLNB was 2.6 (IQR, 2.3-3.0) and the nodal positivity rate for SLNB was 12.2% (IQR, 11.0%-13.7%), with rates ranging from 6% to 21%. A weak correlation between facility-level lymph node yield and nodal positivity was observed (Spearman correlation coefficient, 0.17). Median nodal upstaging rate (≥4 positive nodes) for ALND was 30.5% (IQR, 26.5%-35.0%), with rates ranging from 11% to 54%; median nodal yield was 12.2 (IQR, 10.9-13.6). A strong correlation between nodal yield and nodal upstaging rates was observed (Spearman correlation coefficient, 0.53).Conclusions and RelevanceIn this cohort study of women undergoing axillary surgery for invasive breast cancer, facility-level variation in lymph node yield was present for both SLNB and ALND, which could potentially be improved through the ACS operative standards. However, this variation had mixed associations with nodal positivity and upstaging rates, suggesting the association of the ACS operative standards with oncologic outcomes may be mixed.

Until recently, most patients with sentinel lymph node-positive (SLN+) melanoma underwent a completion lymph node dissection (CLND), as mandated in published trials of adjuvant systemic therapies. Following multicenter selective lymphadenectomy trial-II, most patients with SLN+ melanoma no longer undergo a CLND prior to adjuvant systemic therapy. A retrospective analysis of clinical outcomes in SLN+ melanoma patients treated with adjuvant systemic therapy after July 2017 was performed in 21 international cancer centers. Of 462 patients who received systemic adjuvant therapy, 326 patients received adjuvant anti-PD-1 without prior immediate (IM) CLND, while 60 underwent IM CLND. With median follow-up of 21 months, 24-month relapse-free survival (RFS) was 67% (95% CI 62% to 73%) in the 326 patients. When the patient subgroups who would have been eligible for the two adjuvant anti-PD-1 clinical trials mandating IM CLND were analyzed separately, 24-month RFS rates were 64%, very similar to the RFS rates from those studies. Of these no-CLND patients, those with SLN tumor deposit >1 mm, stage IIIC/D and ulcerated primary had worse RFS. Of the patients who relapsed on adjuvant anti-PD-1, those without IM CLND had a higher rate of relapse in the regional nodal basin than those with IM CLND (46% vs 11%). Therefore, 55% of patients who relapsed without prior CLND underwent surgery including therapeutic lymph node dissection (TLND), with 30% relapsing a second time; there was no difference in subsequent relapse between patients who received observation vs secondary adjuvant therapy. Despite the increased frequency of nodal relapses, adjuvant anti-PD-1 therapy may be as effective in SLN+ pts who forego IM CLND and salvage surgery with TLND at relapse may be a viable option for these patients.

Objective: The aim of this study was to determine overall trends and center-level variation in utilization of completion lymph node dissection (CLND) and adjuvant systemic therapy for sentinel lymph node (SLN)-positive melanoma. Summary Background Data: Based on recent clinical trials, management options for SLN-positive melanoma now include effective adjuvant systemic therapy and nodal observation instead of CLND. It is unknown how these findings have shaped practice or how these contemporaneous developments have influenced their respective utilization. Methods: We performed an international cohort study at 21 melanoma referral centers in Australia, Europe, and the United States that treated adults with SLN-positive melanoma and negative distant staging from July 2017 to June 2019. We used generalized linear and multinomial logistic regression models with random intercepts for each center to assess center-level variation in CLND and adjuvant systemic treatment, adjusting for patient and disease-specific characteristics. Results: Among 1109 patients, performance of CLND decreased from 28% to 8% and adjuvant systemic therapy use increased from 29 to 60%. For both CLND and adjuvant systemic treatment, the most influential factors were nodal tumor size, stage, and location of treating center. There was notable variation among treating centers in management of stage IIIA patients and use of CLND with adjuvant systemic therapy versus nodal observation alone for similar risk patients. Conclusions: There has been an overall decline in CLND and simultaneous adoption of adjuvant systemic therapy for patients with SLN-positive melanoma though wide variation in practice remains. Accounting for differences in patient mix, location of care contributed significantly to the observed variation.

BackgroundFor patients with sentinel lymph node (SLN)‐positive cutaneous melanoma, the Second Multicenter Selective Lymphadenectomy trial demonstrated equivalent disease‐specific survival (DSS) with active surveillance using nodal ultrasound versus completion lymph node dissection (CLND). Adoption and outcomes of active surveillance in clinical practice and in adjuvant therapy recipients are unknown.MethodsIn a retrospective cohort of SLN‐positive adults treated at 21 institutions in Australia, Europe, and the United States from June 2017 to November 2019, the authors evaluated the impact of active surveillance and adjuvant therapy on all‐site recurrence‐free survival (RFS), isolated nodal RFS, distant metastasis‐free survival (DMFS), and DSS using Kaplan‐Meier curves and Cox proportional hazard models.ResultsAmong 6347 SLN biopsies, 1154 (18%) were positive and had initial negative distant staging. In total, 965 patients (84%) received active surveillance, 189 (16%) underwent CLND. Four hundred thirty‐nine patients received adjuvant therapy (surveillance, 38%; CLND, 39%), with the majority (83%) receiving anti–PD‐1 immunotherapy. After a median follow‐up of 11 months, 220 patients developed recurrent disease (surveillance, 19%; CLND, 22%), and 24 died of melanoma (surveillance, 2%; CLND, 4%). Sixty‐eight patients had an isolated nodal recurrence (surveillance, 6%; CLND, 4%). In patients who received adjuvant treatment without undergoing prior CLND, all isolated nodal recurrences were resectable. On risk‐adjusted multivariable analyses, CLND was associated with improved isolated nodal RFS (hazard ratio [HR], 0.36; 95% CI, 0.15‐0.88), but not all‐site RFS (HR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.45‐1.02). Adjuvant therapy improved all‐site RFS (HR, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.47‐0.57). DSS and DMFS did not differ by nodal management or adjuvant treatment.ConclusionsActive surveillance has been adopted for most SLN‐positive patients. At initial assessment, real‐world outcomes align with randomized trial findings, including in adjuvant therapy recipients.Lay Summary For patients with melanoma of the skin and microscopic spread to lymph nodes, monitoring with ultrasound is an alternative to surgically removing the remaining lymph nodes. The authors studied adoption and real‐world outcomes of ultrasound monitoring in over 1000 patients treated at 21 centers worldwide, finding that most patients now have ultrasounds instead of surgery. Although slightly more patients have cancer return in the lymph nodes with this strategy, typically, it can be removed with delayed surgery. Compared with up‐front surgery, ultrasound monitoring results in the same overall risk of melanoma coming back at any location or of dying from melanoma.