Pastore, B

BACKGROUND: Social determinants of health (SDOH) are associated with adverse cancer outcomes, yet the prevalence and impact of SDOH screening across Commission on Cancer (CoC)-accredited programs are unknown. We evaluated national SDOH screening practices and their association with adherence to CoC quality measures. STUDY DESIGN: A cross-sectional survey of 1,445 CoC-accredited programs (October to December 2024) was linked to National Cancer Database data (2020 to 2022). Adult patients treated at 435 responding hospitals (30.1%) were included. Programs were categorized by routine outpatient SDOH screening status. Multivariable logistic regression assessed associations between screening and receipt of quality measure–concordant care, adjusting for screening duration, age, race, ethnicity, Charlson Comorbidity Index, insurance status, rurality, and program type or case count. RESULTS: Of 435 programs, 165 (37.9%) reported routine SDOH screening. Screening programs more frequently treated ≥10% Medicaid or uninsured patients (29.1% vs 19.6%, p = 0.023). Mean performance was higher at screening hospitals for breast radiation within 60 days (66.6% vs 64.6%, p = 0.046), colon adjuvant chemotherapy within 120 days (84.6% vs 81.9%, p = 0.018), and lung systemic therapy within 90 days (77.2% vs 75.4%, p = 0.043). On adjusted analysis, screening for more than 3 years was independently associated with timely colon adjuvant chemotherapy (odds ratio 1.05; 95% CI 1.01 to 1.07; p = 0.033). Findings persisted after excluding safety net hospitals. CONCLUSIONS: Only one-third of responding CoC programs routinely screen for SDOH. Sustained screening was independently associated with improved adherence to time-sensitive colon cancer chemotherapy, supporting integration of patient-level SDOH assessment into oncology care delivery.

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.

Objective: To evaluate the first 3 years of compliance with the American College of Surgeons Commission on Cancer (CoC) Operative Standards. Background: CoC implemented evidence-based standards to improve the quality of sentinel lymph node biopsy and axillary lymph node dissection for breast cancer (operative standards 5.3 and 5.4), wide local excision for melanoma (5.5), colectomy for colon cancer (5.6), proctectomy for rectal cancer (5.7), and pulmonary resection for lung cancer (5.8) at ∼1400 programs treating >74% of US cancer patients. Each operative standard defines a technical element of the operation and structured documentation. Methods: Compliance data are from site visits conducted between January 1, 2022, and December 31, 2024 (implementation/site visits began in 2021/2022 for 5.7 and 5.8 and 2023/2024 for 5.3–5.6). Compliance with each operative standard was determined by evaluation of 7 operative (5.3–5.6) or pathology (5.7, 5.8) reports. Deficiency in technical performance, documentation, or both was considered noncompliance. Results: Reviewers conducted 974 site visits of Comprehensive Community (44%), Community (23%), Academic Comprehensive (16%), network (12%), NCI-Designated Comprehensive (4%), and other (1%) cancer programs. Program compliance rates ranged from 53% to 88%. Documentation noncompliance was more common for standards 5.3 to 5.6 (based on operative reports), and technical noncompliance was more common for 5.7 and 5.8 (based on pathology reports). Compliance significantly (P=0.006) varied by program type for 5.8 (highest: 66% at NCI-designated Comprehensive programs; lowest: 37% at Community Cancer programs). Conclusions: Early compliance with CoC operative standards varied, indicating local and large-scale national quality improvement efforts are needed.