Wasif, Nabil

BACKGROUNDSurgeon and hospital factors are associated with the survival of patients treated for rectal cancer. The relative contribution of each of these factors toward determining outcomes is poorly understood.METHODSWe used data from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results–Medicare database to analyze the outcomes of patients aged 65 years and older undergoing operative treatment for nonmetastatic rectal cancer, diagnosed in the United States between 1998 and 2007. These data were linked to a registry to identify whether the treating surgeon was a board‐certified colorectal surgeon versus a noncolorectal surgeon. Hospital volume and hospital certification as a National Cancer Institute–designated Comprehensive Cancer Centers were also analyzed. The primary outcome of interest was long‐term survival.RESULTSOur data source yielded 6432 patients. Initial analysis demonstrated improved long‐term survival in patients treated by higher‐volume colorectal surgeons, higher‐volume hospitals, teaching hospitals, and National Cancer Institute (NCI)–designated Comprehensive Cancer Centers. Based on an iterative approach to modeling the interactions between these various factors, we found a robust effect of surgeon subspecialty status, hospital volume, and NCI designation. Surgeon volume was not distinctly associated with long‐term survival.CONCLUSIONSPatients treated for rectal cancer by board‐certified colorectal surgeons in centers that are higher volume and/or NCI‐designated Comprehensive Cancer Centers experience better overall survival. These differences persist after adjustment for a broad range of patient and contextual risk factors, including surgeon volume. Patients and payers can use these results to identify surgeons and hospitals where outcomes are most favorable. Cancer 2014;120:2472–2481. © 2014 American Cancer Society.

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.