Snyder, Rebecca A

PURPOSE Adherence to operative standards and thorough documentation of surgical technique are critical, particularly in multidisciplinary clinical trials. We sought to evaluate variability in the performance and documentation of oncologically relevant aspects of technical surgery among patients enrolled in Alliance A021501, a phase 2 National Clinical Trials Network randomized clinical trial of neoadjuvant therapy for borderline resectable pancreatic adenocarcinoma. METHODS We reviewed the primary operative and pathology reports of all enrolled patients who underwent complete pancreatic resection. Operative techniques and pathologic end points with potential to influence recurrence and survival were evaluated. RESULTS Fifty-one of 126 study participants (40.5%) underwent complete pancreatectomy. The extent of lymphadenectomy was documented in 36 (70.6%) operative reports, and 5 (9.8%) reports outlined the specific lymph node stations removed. Periadventitial dissection of the superior mesenteric artery was described in 25 of 50 (50.0%) operative reports. Immediate histopathologic analysis of the hepatic duct and pancreatic parenchyma margins was documented in 29 of 50 (58.0%) and 32 of 49 (65.3%) reports, respectively, and presence or absence of residual disease following resection was documented in 9 of 51 (17.6%) reports. Specimen orientation was documented in 19 of 51 (37.3%) pathology reports, and 30 of 49 (61.2%) pathology reports stated the distance between the tumor and final SMA margin. CONCLUSION Even in this rigorously controlled, multicenter, randomized pancreatic cancer clinical trial, performance of key elements of technical surgery was inconsistent, and documentation was incomplete. Standardization of technique and documentation in clinical trials and within clinical practice should be addressed to improve quality assurance and trial interpretability.

PURPOSE Social determinants of health (SDOH) shape cancer treatment access, adherence, and outcomes, yet their collection and use within National Clinical Trials Network (NCTN) studies remain poorly defined. This study examined how demographic and SDOH-related variables were historically collected and published to identify gaps that constrain the study of social context within NCTN trials. METHODS Participant-level data from completed phase III trials for gastrointestinal (GI) cancers conducted by the Alliance for Clinical Trials in Oncology (Alliance) or its legacy groups from 1999 to 2018 were pooled. Thirteen measures were assessed: four demographic and nine SDOH-related. The proportion of individual participants with data collected for each measure was evaluated. Data utilization was evaluated for all primary articles and via targeted review of related publications using the number either reporting subgroups or publishing analyses for each measure. RESULTS A total of 12,701 participants across 11 trials were included. All trials collected demographic measures (<2% of patients missing), insurance status (1% missing), and ZIP code (3% missing). Education level was collected in two trials (28% missing) with marital and employment status collected in one trial (41% missing for both). No trials collected data on other SDOH-related measures. Education level was the only SDOH-related measure reported in primary articles, and none reported analysis of SDOH-related measures. Of the 149 related publications, <2% reported or analyzed any SDOH-related measure. CONCLUSION Across Alliance and NCTN legacy group phase III trials for GI cancers, demographic variables have been consistently collected and frequently reported or analyzed, whereas SDOH-related measures are inconsistently collected and rarely published in the literature. These findings demonstrate a historical absence of routine SDOH data capture and utilization within NCTN trials.