Francescatti, Amanda 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.

BACKGROUND: To reduce technical variation in cancer surgery, the Commission on Cancer (CoC) recently implemented 6 operative standards as part of its national cancer center accreditation process. CoC sites are evaluated for compliance with these standards through scheduled visits conducted by trained site reviewers. We characterized site reviewers’ perspectives on the implementation of the operative standards. STUDY DESIGN: Twenty interviews were conducted with CoC site reviewers using a semistructured interview guide based on the Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation, and Maintenance framework. Themes were identified using thematic analysis mapped to the updated Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research. RESULTS: Site reviewers viewed the operative standards as an effective starting point for improving technical quality and were optimistic the standards would lead to positive change. Compliance was associated with supportive site leadership, effective interdisciplinary communication, and the availability of adequate personnel and institutional resources. In contrast, resistance from surgeons was identified as a key barrier. CoC site reviewers interpret their role as extending beyond assessing compliance, viewing themselves as advocates, educators, and partners to the sites. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, CoC site reviewers perceive the operative standards favorably. To enhance implementation of the operative standards, efforts should focus on modifiable institutional and individual-level factors, such as leadership support and surgeon engagement. Additionally, the multifaceted role of the site reviewers presents a valuable opportunity to improve compliance by formalizing the supportive relationship between reviewers and sites.

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.

ImportanceSince 2021, American College of Surgeons Commission on Cancer (CoC) accreditation standards require providing a survivorship program for patients with adult-onset cancer treated with curative intent. Since more than 70% of all patients with cancer in the US are treated at CoC-accredited facilities, this presents an opportunity for a landscape analysis of survivorship care availability.ObjectiveTo determine the prevalence, types, and outcomes of cancer survivorship services at CoC-accredited facilities.Design, Setting, and ParticipantsThis survey study used an anonymous, online, cross-sectional survey conducted from May 4 to 25, 2023. Participants were CoC-accredited facilities in the US representing diverse CoC program categories, institutional characteristics, geographic regions, and practice types. Department of Veterans Affairs cancer programs were excluded due to data usage restrictions. Data were analyzed from July to October 2023.ExposureCoC Survivorship Standard 4.8 was released in October 2019 and programs were expected to adhere to the Standard beginning January 1, 2021.Main Outcomes and MeasuresQuestions included self-reported survivorship program characteristics, availability of services aligned to CoC Survivorship Standard 4.8, and perceived program impacts. Response frequencies and proportions were determined in aggregate and by CoC program category.ResultsThere were 1400 eligible programs, and 384 programs participated (27.4% response rate). All regions and eligible program categories were represented, and most had analytic caseloads of 500 to 4999 patients in 2021. Most survivorship program personnel included nurses (334 programs [87.0%]) and social workers (278 programs [72.4%]), while physical (180 programs [46.9%]) and occupational (87 programs [22.7%]) therapists were less common. Services most endorsed as available for all survivors were screening for new cancers (330 programs [87.5%]), nutritional counseling (325 programs [85.3%]), and referrals to specialists (320 programs [84.7%]), while treatment summaries (242 programs [64.7%]), and survivorship care plans (173 programs [43.0%]), sexual health (217 programs [57.3%]), and fertility (214 programs [56.9%]) were less common. Survivorship services were usually delivered by cancer treatment teams (243 programs [63.3%]) rather than specialized survivorship clinics (120 programs [31.3%]). For resources needed, additional advanced practice clinicians with dedicated survivorship effort (205 programs [53.4%]) and electronic health record enhancements (185 programs [48.2%]) were most endorsed. Lack of referrals and low patient awareness were endorsed as the primary barriers. A total of 335 programs (87.2%) agreed that Survivorship Standard 4.8 helped advance their programs.Conclusions and RelevanceThese findings of this survey study of CoC-accredited programs establish a benchmark for survivorship care delivery in the US, identify gaps in specific services and opportunities for intervention, contribute to longitudinal reevaluation for tracking progress nationally, and suggest the value of survivorship care standards.

The purpose of this article is to review the objectives of the American College of Surgeons Commission on Cancer Operative Standards with a specific focus on Standard 5.5, which pertains to curative intent wide local excision of primary cutaneous melanoma lesions. We review the details and rationale of the standard itself, including its requirement to include specific elements and responses in synoptic format in operative reports.

Abstract Background Guidelines for follow-up after locoregional breast cancer treatment recommend imaging for distant metastases only in the presence of patient signs and/or symptoms. However, guidelines have not been updated to reflect advances in imaging, systemic therapy, or the understanding of biological subtype. We assessed the association between mode of distant recurrence detection and survival. Methods In this observational study, a stage-stratified random sample of women with stage II-III breast cancer in 2006-2007 and followed through 2016 was selected, including up to 10 women from each of 1217 Commission on Cancer facilities (n = 10 076). The explanatory variable was mode of recurrence detection (asymptomatic imaging vs signs and/or symptoms). The outcome was time from initial cancer diagnosis to death. Registrars abstracted scan type, intent (cancer-related vs not, asymptomatic surveillance vs not), and recurrence. Data were merged with each patient’s National Cancer Database record. Results Surveillance imaging detected 23.3% (284 of 1220) of distant recurrences (76.7%, 936 of 1220 by signs and/or symptoms). Based on propensity-weighted multivariable Cox proportional hazards models, patients with asymptomatic imaging compared with sign and/or symptom detected recurrences had a lower risk of death if estrogen receptor (ER) and progesterone receptor (PR) negative, HER2 negative (triple negative; hazard ratio [HR] = 0.73, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.54 to 0.99), or HER2 positive (HR = 0.51, 95% CI = 0.33 to 0.80). No association was observed for ER- or PR-positive, HER2-negative (HR = 1.14, 95% CI = 0.91 to 1.44) cancers. Conclusions Recurrence detection by asymptomatic imaging compared with signs and/or symptoms was associated with lower risk of death for triple-negative and HER2-positive, but not ER- or PR-positive, HER2-negative cancers. A randomized trial is warranted to evaluate imaging surveillance for metastases results in these subgroups.

6520 Background: Breast cancer follow-up guidelines recommend imaging for distant metastases only in the presence of signs/symptoms. However, data supporting this recommendation predates the current era of improved imaging and targeted therapies based on molecular subtype. The objective was to assess the relationship between mode of distant recurrence detection and survival. Methods: A stage-stratified random sample of Stage II-III breast cancer patients diagnosed in 2006-7 was selected from NCDB records from 1,217 CoC-accredited facilities (10/hospital n = 10,853). Women were categorized by subtype: 1) ER or PR+/HER2-; 2) ER and PR-/Her2- (triple negative); 3) HER2+. Medical records abstracted for 5-years post-surgery supplemented NCDB data and assessed distant recurrence and mode of detection (prompted by signs/symptoms or surveillance imaging), imaging (chest CT, abdomen/pelvis CT/MRI, head CT/MRI, bone scan, PET/CT), death date. The relationship between mode of recurrence detection and days from initial cancer diagnosis to death was assessed using propensity-weighted multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression stratified by subtype. Propensity weights, based on receipt of surveillance systemic imaging, accounted for sociodemographic and tumor/treatment factors. Results: 5-year distant recurrence was 22.3% for triple negative, 14.8% HER2+, and 11.2% for ER or PR+/ HER2- patients. Asymptomatic imaging detected recurrence in 22.9% and signs/symptoms in 77.1%. Patients with asymptomatic as compared to sign/symptom detected recurrences had reduced risk of death in 5 years if triple negative (HR = 0.68, 95% CI = 0.50-0.93) or HER2+ (HR = 0.40, 95% CI = 0.24-0.65) with no significant association for ER or PR+/HER2- (HR = 1.2, 95% CI = 0.88-1.51). This translated to a between-group difference in weighted median survival of 5 months for triple negative and 13 months for HER2+ patients. Conclusions: This is the first nationally representative study to show a survival advantage with asymptomatic detection of distant metastases for patients, with the benefit limited to triple negative and HER2+ disease. Further research to confirm observational findings is warranted.