Abdelsattar, Zaid M.

Background: The comparative effectiveness of robotic-assisted versus conventional minimally invasive (“straight stick”) approaches across multiple solid organ malignancies remains incompletely defined, limiting evidence-based operative platform selection. Study Design: Patients undergoing minimally invasive primary tumor resection for 17 solid organ cancers were identified in the National Cancer Database (2010–2022) and stratified by robotic-assisted versus straight stick approach. The primary endpoint was conversion to open surgery. Secondary endpoints included short-term outcomes and oncologic/technical metrics. Multivariable logistic and negative binomial regression models were used to estimate adjusted associations. Results: Among 2,258,360 patients, 1,339,482 (59.3%) underwent robotic-assisted resection. Robotic surgery was associated with lower adjusted conversion rates compared with straight stick approaches (6.1% vs 13.6%, p<0.001), a finding consistent across all organ sites. Robotic approaches yielded approximately one additional lymph node on average after adjustment. Length of stay, 90-day mortality, and negative margin rates were overall similar between groups, with variation by disease site. Conclusions: In this large national cohort, robotic-assisted resection for solid organ malignancies was more frequently utilized and associated with lower conversion rates and modestly higher lymph node yield compared with straight stick approaches. These findings support consideration of robotic platforms to reduce conversion risk, although equivalence in other short-term outcomes and potential residual confounding warrant cautious interpretation.

Abstract Background The purpose of this study was to evaluate the survival difference in clinical T2N0 esophageal cancer patients receiving neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (CRT) vs. upfront surgery. Methods Between 1/1/1995 to 12/31/2012, a prospectively maintained database was used to identify patients with cT2N0 esophageal adeno- and squamous cell carcinoma. Exclusion criteria included: lack of endoscopic esophageal ultrasonographic (EUS) staging, incomplete resection, and prior treatment with endoscopic mucosal or submucosal resection. Cox-proportional hazard ratios were used to compare the primary outcomes of overall (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS). Secondary outcomes included: rate of postoperative complications, rate of pathologic upstaging/response, and induction/adjuvant treatment completion rate. Pre-hoc subgroup analysis compared pathologically upstaged patients receiving upfront surgery followed by adjuvant chemotherapy to those treated with neoadjuvant CRT. Results A total of 161 cT2N0 esophageal cancer patients were identified based on EUS staging. Upfront surgery was offered to 134 patients (83%), with 27 patients (17%) receiving induction CRT. Univariate analysis did not demonstrate any significant baseline differences between the two groups. In the upfront surgery group, 53 (39.6%), 28 (20.9%) and 53 (39.6%) patients were pathologically down-staged, accurately staged and upstaged respectively. Upstaging was higher in the upfront surgery group (53/134, 39.6% vs. 4/27, 14.8%; P = 0.02), while 11/27 (40.7%) patients receiving neoadjuvant CRT demonstrated complete pathologic response. Of those eligible for adjuvant chemotherapy, only 21/55 (38.2%) received treatment. In the neoadjuvant CRT group, 51.9% completed all planned therapy, compared to 23.6% of patients treated with upfront surgery followed by adjuvant chemotherapy (P = 0.01). Cox proportional hazard ratio did not demonstrate an advantage to induction CRT in terms of OS (HR = 1.64, P = 0.43) or DFS (HR = 1.36, P = 0.69). In general, patients with pathologic upstaging had worse OS (HR = 2.73, P = 0.001) and DFS (HR = 4.18, P = 0.003). Conclusion EUS was only accurate in staging T2N0 patients in 20.9% of cases. While neoadjuvant CRT did not confer a survival advantage, these results likely reflect the low number of patients being referred for induction therapy. Neoadjuvant CRT was however associated with lower rates of pathologic upstaging and higher rates of treatment completion. Further research should evaluate the survival outcomes in pathologically upstaged cT2N0 patients not receiving neoadjuvant therapy. Disclosure All authors have declared no conflicts of interest.

BACKGROUND Individuals from disadvantaged communities are among the millions of uninsured Americans gaining insurance under the Affordable Care Act. The extent to which health insurance can mitigate the effects of the social determinants of health on cancer care is unknown. METHODS This study linked the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results registries to US Census data to study patients diagnosed with the 4 leading causes of cancer deaths between 2007 and 2011. A county‐level social determinant score was developed with 5 measures of wealth, education, and employment. Patients were stratified into quintiles, with the lowest quintile representing the most disadvantaged communities. Logistic regression and Cox proportional hazards models were used to estimate associations and cancer‐specific survival. RESULTS A total of 364,507 patients aged 18 to 64 years were identified (134,105 with breast cancer, 106,914 with prostate cancer, 62,606 with lung cancer, and 60,882 with colorectal cancer). Overall, patients from the most disadvantaged communities (median household income, $42,885; patients below the poverty level, 22%; patients completing college, 17%) were more likely to present with distant disease (odds ratio, 1.6; P < .001) and were less likely to receive cancer‐directed surgery (odds ratio, 0.8; P < .001) than the least disadvantaged communities (median income, $78,249; patients below the poverty level, 9%; patients completing college, 42%). The differences persisted across quintiles regardless of the insurance status. The effect of having insurance on cancer‐specific survival was more pronounced in disadvantaged communities (relative benefit at 3 years, 40% vs 31%). However, it did not fully mitigate the effect of social determinants on mortality (hazard ratio, 0.75 vs 0.68; P < .001). CONCLUSIONS Cancer patients from disadvantaged communities benefit most from health insurance, and there is a reduction in disparities in outcome. However, the gap produced by social determinants of health cannot be bridged by insurance alone. Cancer 2017;123:1219–1227. © 2016 American Cancer Society .

BACKGROUNDAlthough colorectal cancer (CRC) screening guidelines recommend initiating screening at age 50 years, the percentage of cancer cases in younger patients is increasing. To the authors' knowledge, the national treatment patterns and outcomes of these patients are largely unknown.METHODSThe current study was a population‐based, retrospective cohort study of the nationally representative Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results registry for patients diagnosed with CRC from 1998 through 2011. Patients were categorized as being younger or older than the recommended screening age. Differences with regard to stage of disease at diagnosis, patterns of therapy, and disease‐specific survival were compared between age groups using multinomial regression, multiple regression, Cox proportional hazards regression, and Weibull survival analysis.RESULTSOf 258,024 patients with CRC, 37,847 (15%) were aged <50 years. Young patients were more likely to present with regional (relative risk ratio, 1.3; P<.001) or distant (relative risk ratio, 1.5; P<.001) disease. Patients with CRC with distant metastasis in the younger age group were more likely to receive surgical therapy for their primary tumor (adjusted probability: 72% vs 63%; P<.001), and radiotherapy also was more likely in younger patients with CRC (adjusted probability: 53% vs 48%; P<.001). Patients younger than the recommended screening age had better overall disease‐specific survival (hazards ratio, 0.77; P<.001), despite a larger percentage of these individuals presenting with advanced disease.CONCLUSIONSPatients with CRC diagnosed at age <50 years are more likely to present with advanced‐stage disease. However, they receive more aggressive therapy and achieve longer disease‐specific survival, despite the greater percentage of patients with advanced‐stage disease. These findings suggest the need for improved risk assessment and screening decisions for younger adults. Cancer 2016;122:929–34. © 2016 American Cancer Society.