Baskin, Alison S.

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.