Citations

BACKGROUND: The National Cancer Database (NCDB) captures 73.7% of newly diagnosed cancers in the USs and underpins thousands of outcomes studies informing oncologic practice. To remain relevant amid rapid therapeutic and policy changes, the NCDB has undergone substantial structural and variable-level revisions. We characterized major updates during the past decade and their implications for research. STUDY DESIGN: We performed a narrative review of annual NCDB data dictionary revisions, American College of Surgeons bulletins, and internal program updates in collaboration with NCDB leadership. Structural modifications, variable additions, and policy changes affecting data capture, follow-up, staging, and accessibility were systematically summarized. RESULTS: The NCDB now includes data from 1,413 Commission on Cancer–accredited hospitals and more than 55 million records. Since 2020, the Rapid Cancer Reporting System enables near–real-time monthly submissions. Embargo periods were reduced from 5 to 3 years for survival data and 2 years for other variables, increasing analytic timeliness. Follow-up was limited to 15 years beginning January 1, 2022. Variable refinements include continuous tumor size in millimeters (since 2016), separation of tumor grade into clinical, pathologic, and posttherapy fields (since 2018), phased radiation treatment reporting (since 2018), and American Joint Committee on Cancer eighth edition staging implementation in January 2018 with nineth edition rollout ongoing. New data elements include Medicaid expansion status (2020), COVID-19 variables (2020 to 2021; 12.4% reduction in cases in 2020), smoking status (2023), and planned programmed death-ligand 1 reporting for non–small cell lung cancer beginning in 2025. CONCLUSIONS: The NCDB has evolved toward more granular, contemporary, and policy-relevant data capture while maintaining broad national coverage. Investigators must account for staging transitions, variable maturation, follow-up limits, and registry-specific biases to ensure valid interpretation of NCDB-based research.

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.

The National Cancer Database (NCDB) collects data from approximately 1,500 Commission on Cancer (CoC) facilities and represent 73.7% of newly diagnosed cancers nationwide. The American College of Surgeons Cancer Program developed it first annual report from the NCDB 2021 participant user file reporting new observations and recent trends of cancer diagnoses, patient demographics, and treatments as well as an in-depth report on treatment and outcomes in breast, pancreas, and colon cancers. Of the 1,328,131 cancers diagnosed in 2021 at 1,281 reporting CoC hospitals, one-fifth continue to be female breast cancer. In 2021, the NCDB’s 5 most common adult cancers were breast, prostate, lung, colon, and melanoma and varied by patient sex. Use of neoadjuvant systemic therapy increased in recent years in pancreas, breast, and urinary bladder cancer, although a slight decrease in pancreas and breast cancer was observed in 2021. Breast cancer has high survival rates, especially in lower-stage disease and estrogen receptor-positive/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative disease. There is increase in neoadjuvant systemic therapy use, especially in human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-positive disease and estrogen receptor-negative disease. Colon cancer presents most commonly as stage III or II with a primary in the cecum or ascending colon in 38.9%. The majority are microsatellite instability stable, Kirsten rat sarcoma viral oncogene homologue normal, and CEA positive. Survival is most dependent on stage but also associated with microsatellite instability stability, abnormal Kirsten rat sarcoma viral oncogene homologue, and positive CEA. Pancreatic cancer presents with stage IV disease in nearly half, although an increase in stage I disease is seen. The most common location is pancreatic head. Survival is relatively low and most dependent on stage.