Ashman, Jonathan B.

178 Background: Soft tissue sarcoma is a rare disease requiring multidisciplinary care for effective treatment. The National Comprehensive Cancer Network has developed guidelines for surgical resection and adjuvant therapy based on best available evidence. We sought to examine variance from these guidelines in treatment across the United States. Methods: The Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results cancer registry was queried to identify patients undergoing surgery for extra-abdominal soft tissue sarcoma from 2004-2009. Coded variables signifying radical excision (RE) and the use of radiation therapy (RT) were correlated with stage of the primary tumor. Patients with metastatic disease, unknown size and unknown grade were excluded. Results: A total of 5,600 patients were identified with a median age of 61. Median tumor size was 8cm and most tumors were high grade (57% G3). Stage specific breakdown was as follows; Stage I 24%, Stage II 37% and Stage III 39%. Overall, 54% of patients underwent RE and 50% received RT, mostly in the post-operative setting (83%). The amputation rate was 4%. Although routine radiation therapy is not recommended for Stage IA and IB patients, 24% still underwent RT, whereas only 49% of Stage I patients were noted to have undergone a RE. Even though routine RT is recommended for Stage II and III tumors, 42% of patients did not undergo any RT, and only 58% underwent RE. On multivariate analysis predictors of RE were age <50 (OR 1.3, 95% CI 1.1-1.6), lower extremity tumor (OR 2.2, 95% CI 1.6- 2.8), Stage III, (OR 2.1, 95% CI 1.7- 2.6), and white race (OR 1.4, 95% CI 1.2- 1.8). Variance from guidelines was seen in 64% of patients. Conclusions: Significant heterogeneity and variation in the contemporary treatment for soft tissue sarcoma in the United States exists. Although low rates of RE may be related to coding discrepancies, rates as low as 54% are still a cause for concern. Overuse, and more importantly, underuse of RT is seen for a significant proportion of patients. If these trends are confirmed by further study, more effort will have to be directed towards compliance with appropriate treatment recommendations, perhaps by regionalizing sarcoma care.

158 Background: Esophageal cancer patients (pts) require multidisciplinary management involving thoracic and general surgeons, medical and radiation oncologists, gastroenterologists and psychiatrists. Pts navigate complex medical discussions and endure challenges to nutrition, body image, swallowing mechanics, energy level and weight, mood, and performance status. Coordination of care is complicated by multiple sites of pt entry, complex scheduling requirements, and incomplete information at multidisciplinary consultation. A nurse navigator to coordinate the patient experience may optimize treatment and improve outcomes, quality of life and patient satisfaction. Methods: The nurse navigator evaluates all pt records prior to initial appointment and coordinates scheduling, records acquisition, testing and specialty appointments. The nurse navigator serves as a liaison with pts throughout the course of care and provides a patient navigation book (PNB) as a central source for patient-directed information and record keeping. Benchmarks compared before and after creation of the nurse navigator position include: (1) time from appointment request to multidisciplinary evaluation and start of treatment; (2) completeness of medical records and data (scans, pathology slides); (3) patient awareness of support services for themselves and caregivers; (4) utilization of the PNB; (5) number and frequency of interim hospitalizations and emergency room visits; (6) patient, caregiver, and physician satisfaction. Results: From January to July 2012, 27 gastroesophageal cancer pts have been followed by the nurse navigator. Most of these patients remain on active treatment, hence benchmark analysis is ongoing. Metrics thus far suggest improvement in time to treatment start and awareness of patient resources, use of the PNB and patient satisfaction. Conclusions: Esophageal cancer pts undergo complex and toxic multimodality therapy with curative intent. A dedicated nurse navigator may improve the patient experience, optimize adherence to guideline based therapy and appropriate timeframes and provide continuity to pts undergoing multidisciplinary treatment.

327 Background: The use of preoperative therapy for pancreatic cancer remains controversial. This study reviews our experience using neoadjuvant chemotherapy and chemoradiation (CRT) followed by surgery with intraoperative electron irradiation (IOERT) for patients with borderline resectable (BR) or unresectable (UR) tumors. Methods: A retrospective review identified 48 patients (pts) with primary BR/UR pancreas adenocarcinoma treated with preop CRT with intent to proceed to curative surgery with IOERT. Seventeen patients did not undergo attempted resection and are excluded (disease progression, 12; medically inoperable, 3; declined surgery, 2). Thirty-one patients proceeded to resection attempt and are the subject of this analysis. Kaplan-Meier survival analysis was performed using log rank test for significance. Median follow up was 19 months (mo). Results: Complete resection (R0) was achieved in 11 pts, R1 in 5, and R2 or not resected (IOERT alone) in 15 patients. Twenty-six pts died (23 of disease, 2 unrelated causes, 1 uncertain). Median overall survival (OS) was 19 mo for all pts. Local progression was detected in only 5 patients (16%) while distant disease developed in 24 (77%). Resection status significantly correlated with OS; R0/R1 patients had a median survival of 23 mo vs. 10 mo for R2/unresected tumors (p = 0.002). Three-year OS was 35% vs. 0%, respectively. Survival was not influenced by tumor location, CA19-9 baseline or response, tumor size, or initial judgment of resectability (BR vs. UR). BR tumors were resectable after neoadjuvant therapy in 9 of 11 patients (R0, 8; R1, 1) while 8 of 20 initially UR tumors underwent resection (R0, 3; R1, 4; R2, 1). Conclusions: Neoadjuvant therapy combined with IOERT has the possibility to improve patient selection for surgical resection and to optimize local therapy. Although the prognosis for locally advanced pancreatic cancer remains poor, survival was superior among patients for whom R0 or R1 resection was achieved. Distant metastasis remained the dominant pattern of failure, and novel systemic agents are needed. Prospective evaluation of the impact of neoadjuvant chemotherapy, CRT, and IOERT is warranted.

125 Background: Esophageal cancer is best managed by multimodality therapy, frequently with chemotherapy (C) or chemo- radiotherapy (CRT) preceding resection. Minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) is increasingly accepted, but studies of MIE in advanced esophageal and gastroesophageal junction cancer after induction CRT are lacking. This report presents the data on MIE as part of tri-modality therapy for esophageal cancer at Mayo Clinic in Arizona (MCA). Methods: Patients (pts) who underwent CRT before or after MIE for cancer at MCA between November 2006 and May of 2010 were reviewed retrospectively. Results: 46 pts (40 males, and 6 females) met study criteria and were reviewed. Median age was 62 years (41-88 years). 45 pts (98%) had adenocarcinoma and one pt had squamous carcinoma. Initial clinical stage was IIA in 10 pts (22%), IIB in 3 pts (7%), III in 26 pts (55%), and IVA in 7 pts (15%) with positive celiac nodes. 43 pts (93%) underwent preoperative CRT with additional intra-operative radiotherapy in 4 pts. Median operating time was 354 min (range 211-567 min), median blood loss was 225 ml (range 50-1,400 ml), and median hospital stay was 8 days (range 5-48 days). 19 pts (41%), including the 3 who did not undergo preoperative CRT, received postoperative C or CRT due to either residual disease at resection or to local recurrence. 30 of 43 pts undergoing MIE after CRT were down staged (11 CR [25.6%], 10 near CR [23.3%]) demonstrating a major response to neoadjuvant therapy in 48.9% of pts. One pt died in hospital (from ARDS and sepsis subsequent to aspiration pneumonia) and two pts died within 30 days of surgery (one from pulmonary embolism, and the other from unknown causes) for a 30 day surgical mortality of 6.5%. 29 pts (63%) had a complication of surgery including 11 (24%) minor and 18 (39%) major complications. After a median follow-up of 13 months (range 0.9-43 months) 16 pts were diagnosed with recurrent disease and 10 of these pts have died of their disease. Conclusions: CRT with MIE is associated with an acceptable morbidity and mortality level for pts with locally advanced esophageal cancer. These results compare favorably with morbidity, mortality, and recurrence rates in open esophagectomy pts. No significant financial relationships to disclose.

PurposeTo examine the value of surgical resection combined with preoperative external beam radiation therapy and intraoperative radiation therapy (Surg‐RT) for retroperitoneal sarcoma (RPS).MethodsReview of 63 consecutive patients with RPS from 1996 to 2011.ResultsThirty‐seven patients (59%) underwent Surg‐RT and 26 (41%) had surgery alone. 51% of tumors were high grade and 36% of patients had locally recurrent disease. Final margin status was: R0 73%, R1 16%, R2 6%, and unknown 5%. Of those with R0 resections, 67% received Surg‐RT. Median follow‐up was 45 months. The 5‐year local control rate was 89% for Surg‐RT patients and 46% for surgery alone patients (P = 0.03). On multivariate analysis, Surg‐RT was the only variable associated with a lower risk of LR (HR 0.19; CI 0.05–0.69, P = 0.003). The actuarial 5‐year OS was 60% for patients receiving either Surg‐RT or surgery alone.ConclusionsThe combination of pre‐operative radiation, surgical resection, and intraoperative radiation produces excellent local disease control for RPS. Combination therapy was associated with improved local control but not with overall survival. J. Surg. Oncol. 2014 109:798–803. © 2014 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

BackgroundWe sought to examine adherence to National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines for use of radiation therapy (RT) in patients with soft tissue sarcoma (STS) in the United States.MethodsThe surveillance, epidemiology, and end results cancer registry was queried to identify patients undergoing surgery for truncal and extremity STS from 2004 to 2009.ResultsOf 5,075 patients, 50% received RT. Although routine RT is not recommended for Stage I patients, 25% still underwent RT. Even though routine RT is recommended for Stage II and III tumors, only 60% underwent RT. On multivariate analysis predictors of RT included age <50 years (OR 1.57, 95% CI 1.28–1.91), malignant fibrous histiocytoma histology (OR 1.47, 95% CI 1.3–1.92), T2 classification (OR 1.88, 95% CI 1.60–2.20), and G3 (OR 6.27, 95% CI 5.10–7.72). Patients with Stage III STS who received RT showed improved disease specific survival at 5 years compared to those who did not, 68% versus 46%, P <0.001.ConclusionsUnderuse of RT is seen for a significant proportion of patients undergoing treatment for STS in the United States. More effort needs to be directed towards compliance with appropriate treatment recommendations, perhaps by regionalizing sarcoma care or remote multidisciplinary tumor boards. J. Surg. Oncol 2014; 109:633–638. © 2014 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.