Search

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is one of the most common causes of cancer-related death worldwide. Partial hepatectomy, one of a few curative therapeutic modalities, is plagued by high recurrence rate of up to 70% at 5 years. Throughout the past 3 decades, many clinical trials have attempted to improve HCC recurrence rate following partial hepatectomy using adjuvant and neoadjuvant treatment modalities such as antiviral therapy, brachytherapy, systemic chemotherapy, immunotherapy, transarterial chemoembolization and radioembolization, and radiotherapy. The goal of this review is to discuss the clinical trials pertaining to resectable HCC including surgical technique considerations, adjuvant, and neoadjuvant treatment modalities.

DOC file, 30K, Definitions for Categories of Process Failures.

PDF file, 64K, Study Population.

PURPOSE: Previous studies have shown health disparities among US-Mexico border county (BC) residents. However, the impact of BC residence on gastric cancer treatment and survival outcomes is unknown. Our study compares the receipt of guideline-concordant care (GCC) and survival for patients with gastric cancer by BC status. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective review of adult non-Hispanic White and Hispanic patients with gastric adenocarcinoma diagnosed between 2004 and 2017 in the Texas Cancer Registry. Chi-square tests were used to compare categorical group differences, with pooled t-tests used to compare group means. The impact of BC residence on likelihood of receiving GCC was assessed with logistic regression. Overall survival was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method and compared with log-rank tests. RESULTS: Our cohort consisted of 12,514 patients (15% BC). Overall, 45% of nonborder county residents received GCC versus 35% of BC residents ( P < .0001). After adjusting for age, race, stage, and insurance status, BC patients remained significantly less likely to receive GCC (odds ratio 0.69; 95% CI, 0.61 to 0.78). BC residence was associated with increased hazard of all-cause mortality after accounting for age, race, stage, poverty index, and treatment receipt (hazard ratio 1.11; 95% CI, 1.04 to 1.18). BC residents had significantly worse overall survival for localized and regional disease. CONCLUSION: BC residents with gastric cancer are less likely to receive GCC and have significantly worse survival outcomes than nonborder county residents. This highlights significant health care disparities arising from the lack of health care access and multiple social determinants of health. Further studies are needed to identify specific contributing mechanisms to improve health care equity.

Supplementary Table 3

Supplementary Table Legend

Supplementary Table 1

Supplementary Table 2

Supplementary Table 4

a. Age at the time of diagnosis of Hispanic/Latino (Hs/L) patients from this study, and of Asian and White patients analyzed by The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA). Horizontal lines, medians; boxes, interquartile ranges; whiskers, maximum and minimum values. P < 0.001. b. Second view of the principal component analysis of whole-exome sequencing data, as analyzed by Locating Ancestry from SEquence Reads to define patient ancestry of Asian and White patients analyzed by the TCGA and Hispanic/Latino patients from this study, as compared to reference from the Human Genome Diversity Project (HGDP).

Supplementary Methods

a. Chromatograms confirming germline CDH1 mutations identified on whole-exome sequencing. b. Age of patients who are wild-type for CDH1 (blue) or carry germline CDH1 mutations (red). Bar denotes median.

Subgroup analysis of overall survival for the Hispanic/Latino cohort. Kaplan-Meier curves comparing: a. all patients by individual mRNA clusters, P < 0.01, b. patients with genomically stable tumors, P < 0.05, c. patients with chromosomal instable tumors, P < 0.05, d. patients with diffuse-type tumors, P < 0.05, e. patients with intestinal-type tumors, P < 0.05.

Hispanic/Latino patients have a higher incidence of gastric cancer and worse cancer-related outcomes compared with patients of other backgrounds. Whether there is a molecular basis for these disparities is unknown, as very few Hispanic/Latino patients have been included in previous studies. To determine the genomic landscape of gastric cancer in Hispanic/Latino patients, we performed whole-exome sequencing (WES) and RNA sequencing on tumor samples from 57 patients; germline analysis was conducted on 83 patients. The results were compared with data from Asian and White patients published by The Cancer Genome Atlas. Hispanic/Latino patients had a significantly larger proportion of genomically stable subtype tumors compared with Asian and White patients (65% vs. 21% vs. 20%, P < 0.001). Transcriptomic analysis identified molecular signatures that were prognostic. Of the 43 Hispanic/Latino patients with diffuse-type cancer, 7 (16%) had germline variants in CDH1. Variant carriers were significantly younger than noncarriers (41 vs. 50 years, P < 0.05). In silico algorithms predicted five variants to be deleterious. For two variants that were predicted to be benign, in vitro modeling demonstrated that these mutations conferred increased migratory capability, suggesting pathogenicity. Hispanic/Latino patients with gastric cancer possess unique genomic landscapes, including a high rate of CDH1 germline variants that may partially explain their aggressive clinical phenotypes. Individualized screening, genetic counseling, and treatment protocols based on patient ethnicity and race may be necessary.Significance:Gastric cancer in Hispanic/Latino patients has unique genomic profiles that may contribute to the aggressive clinical phenotypes seen in these patients.

a. The Cancer Genome Atlas algorithm to categorize gastric cancer into four molecular subtypes: Epstein-Barr virus infected (EBV, red), microsatellite instability (MSI, blue), chromosomal instability (CIN, purple), and genomically stable (GS, green). SCNA = somatic copy number alterations. b. MSIsensor score. Whole-exome sequence data from each Hispanic/Latino cancer sample were analyzed with MSIsenor. Gray bar denotes total mutation burden per megabase. Yellow bar denotes calculated MSIsensor score. Samples with score {greater than or equal to} 10 were considered to be microsatellite unstable.

a. Immunohistochemistry for E-cadherin in six patients who have germline CDH1 mutations. Red long arrows denote cancer cells, short green arrows denote normal stomach glands. P: patient. For P16, normal stomach and cancer cells are shown in two separate panels. Scale bar = 50 μm. b. Amount of DNA in which the CDH1 promoter is methylated.

Immunofluorescence staining for E-cadherin in Chinese hamster ovary cells overexpressing wild-type (WT) CDH1, A286G, or G1849A variants, all of which have wild-type membranous localization. Scale bar = 10 μm.

Previous studies have reported healthcare disparities in the Texas-Mexico border population. Our aim was to evaluate treatment utilization and oncologic outcomes of colon cancer patients in this vulnerable population.Patients with localized and regional colon cancer (CC) were identified in the Texas Cancer Registry (1995-2016). Clinicopathological data, hospital factors, receipt of optimal treatment, and overall survival (OS) were compared between Texas-Mexico Border (TMB) and the Non-Texas-Mexico Border (NTMB) cohorts. Multivariable analysis was performed to identify risk factors associated with decreased survival.We identified 43,557 patients with localized/regional CC (9% TMB and 91% NTMB). TMB patients were more likely to be Hispanic (73% versus 13%), less likely to have private insurance (13% versus 21%), were more often treated at safety net hospitals (82% versus 22%) and less likely at ACS-CoC accredited hospitals (32% versus 57%). TMB patients were more likely to receive suboptimal treatment (21% versus 16%) and had a lower median OS for localized (8.58 versus 9.58 y) and regional colon cancer (5.75 versus 6.18 y, all P0.001). In multivariable analysis, TMB status was not associated with worse OS. Factors associated with worse survival included receipt of suboptimal treatment, Medicare/insured status, and treatment in safety net and non-accredited ACS-CoC hospitals (all P0.001) CONCLUSIONS: While TMB CC patients had worse OS, TMB status itself was not found to be a risk factor for decreased survival. This survival disparity is likely associated with higher rate of suboptimal treatment, Medicare/Uninsured status, and decreased access to ACS-CoC accredited hospitals.

Background Patients with metastatic hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) suffer symptoms of both end-stage liver disease and cancer. Palliative care (PC) enhances the quality of life via symptom control and even improves survival for some cancers. Our study characterized rates of PC utilization among metastatic HCC patients and determined factors associated with PC receipt. Methods We conducted a retrospective review of adult National Cancer Database patients diagnosed with metastatic HCC between 2004 and 2016. Chi-square tests were used to analyze two cohorts: those who received PC and those who did not. Logistic regression was performed to assess the impact of clinicodemographic factors on the likelihood of receiving PC. Results PC utilization was low at just 17%. Later year of diagnosis, insured status, and higher education level were associated with an increased likelihood of receiving PC. Treatment at academic centers or integrated network cancer programs increased the likelihood of receiving PC compared to treatment at a community center (odds ratio [OR] = 1.17, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.03-1.33 and OR = 1.25, 95% CI = 1.07-1.45; respectively). Hispanics were significantly less likely to received PC than non-Hispanic Whites (OR = 0.73, 95% CI = 0.64-0.82). Conclusions PC utilization among patients with metastatic HCC remains low. Targeted efforts should be enacted to increase the delivery of PC in this group.

Background: Delays in diagnosis and treatment have been reported for many cancers, with resultant stage migration and worse survival; however, few data exist in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). These data are of particular importance in light of the COVID-19 pandemic, which has caused disruptions in healthcare processes and may continue to impact cancer care for the foreseeable future. The aim of our study was to characterize the prevalence and clinical significance of diagnostic and treatment delays in patients with HCC. Methods: We performed a retrospective cohort study of consecutive patients diagnosed with HCC between January 2008 and July 2017 at 2 US health systems. Diagnostic and treatment delays were defined as >90 days between presentation and HCC diagnosis and between diagnosis and treatment, respectively. We used multivariable logistic regression to identify factors associated with diagnostic and treatment delays and Cox proportional hazard models to identify correlates of overall survival. Results: Of 925 patients with HCC, 39.0% were diagnosed via screening, 33.1% incidentally, and 27.9% symptomatically. Median time from presentation to diagnosis was 37 days (interquartile range, 18–94 days), with 120 patients (13.0%) experiencing diagnostic delays. Median time from HCC diagnosis to treatment was 46 days (interquartile range, 29–74 days), with 17.2% of patients experiencing treatment delays. Most (72.5%) diagnostic delays were related to provider-level factors (eg, monitoring indeterminate nodules), whereas nearly half (46.2%) of treatment delays were related to patient-related factors (eg, missed appointments). In multivariable analyses, treatment delays were not associated with increased mortality (hazard ratio, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.60–1.35); these results were consistent across subgroup analyses by Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer stage and treatment modality. Conclusions: Diagnostic and therapeutic delays exceeding 3 months are common in patients with HCC; however, observed treatment delays do not seem to significantly impact overall survival.

Professional society guidelines recommend semiannual screening for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in patients with cirrhosis; however, studies suggest underuse of screening in clinical practice. Our study’s aim was to characterize reasons for HCC screening underuse among patients with cirrhosis. We conducted a retrospective cohort study of patients with cirrhosis diagnosed with HCC in two large health systems from 2011 to 2019. We classified screening receipt as consistent, inconsistent, or no screening in the year before HCC diagnosis. We categorized reasons for screening underuse as a potential failure at each of the following steps required for HCC screening: receipt of regular outpatient care, recognition of liver disease, recognition of cirrhosis, screening orders in patients with cirrhosis, and adherence to screening ultrasound appointments. Among 1,014 patients with cirrhosis with HCC, only 377 (37.2%) had regular outpatient care in the year before HCC presentation. Consistent screening was observed in 93 (24.7%) patients under regular outpatient care, whereas 161 (42.7%) had inconsistent screening and 123 (32.6%) no screening. We found screening underuse related to failures at each step in the screening process, although nearly half (49.6%) were due to lack of screening orders in patients with known cirrhosis. Conclusion: The most common reasons for HCC screening underuse in patients with cirrhosis are lack of regular outpatient care and lack of screening orders in those with known cirrhosis, highlighting the need for interventions targeted at these steps to increase HCC screening use., In a retrospective cohort study of 1014 cirrhosis patients diagnosed with HCC in two large health systems, we categorized reasons for screening underuse: receipt of regular outpatient care, recognition of liver disease, recognition of cirrhosis, screening orders in patients with cirrhosis, and adherence to screening ultrasound appointments. Only 377 (37.2%) patients had regular outpatient care in the year prior to HCC presentation, of whom 93 (24.7%) had consistent screening, 161 (42.7%) had inconsistent screening, and 123 (32.6%) no screening. We found screening underuse related to failures at each step in the screening process, although nearly half (49.6%) were due to lack of screening orders in patients with known cirrhosis.

Portal vein tumor thrombus (PVTT) remains a common presentation in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Approximately 30–50% of patients newly diagnosed with HCC will present with a concomitant PVTT. Current guidelines recommend systemic therapy for treatment of HCC with PVTT. Real-world application of partial hepatectomy in HCC patients with PVTT has increased over the past two decades, as perioperative complications have declined. However, it is unclear if there is an association between the extent of PVTT and overall survival and rates of recurrence and whether the perioperative morbidity outweighs these potential benefits. Partial hepatectomy with en bloc resection of PVTT in second-order branches and distal can offer significant benefits in carefully selected patients; however, once the HCC-associated PVTT extends into first-order portal venous branches or more proximal into the superior mesenteric vein, the risks of surgical resection outweigh the benefits. The aim of this review is to determine which patients with HCC presenting with PVTT benefit from surgical resection. We will discuss the classification systems of PVTT and review both outcome and perioperative measures in patients undergoing partial hepatectomy with extirpation of HCC-related PVT.

ImportanceDespite improvements in perioperative mortality, the incidence of postoperative surgical site infection (SSI) remains high after pancreatoduodenectomy. The effect of broad-spectrum antimicrobial surgical prophylaxis in reducing SSI is poorly understood.ObjectiveTo define the effect of broad-spectrum perioperative antimicrobial prophylaxis on postoperative SSI incidence compared with standard care antibiotics.Design, Setting, and ParticipantsPragmatic, open-label, multicenter, randomized phase 3 clinical trial at 26 hospitals across the US and Canada. Participants were enrolled between November 2017 and August 2021, with follow-up through December 2021. Adults undergoing open pancreatoduodenectomy for any indication were eligible. Individuals were excluded if they had allergies to study medications, active infections, chronic steroid use, significant kidney dysfunction, or were pregnant or breastfeeding. Participants were block randomized in a 1:1 ratio and stratified by the presence of a preoperative biliary stent. Participants, investigators, and statisticians analyzing trial data were unblinded to treatment assignment.InterventionThe intervention group received piperacillin-tazobactam (3.375 or 4 g intravenously) as perioperative antimicrobial prophylaxis, while the control group received cefoxitin (2 g intravenously; standard care).Main Outcomes and MeasuresThe primary outcome was development of postoperative SSI within 30 days. Secondary end points included 30-day mortality, development of clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistula, and sepsis. All data were collected as part of the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program.ResultsThe trial was terminated at an interim analysis on the basis of a predefined stopping rule. Of 778 participants (378 in the piperacillin-tazobactam group [median age, 66.8 y; 233 {61.6%} men] and 400 in the cefoxitin group [median age, 68.0 y; 223 {55.8%} men]), the percentage with SSI at 30 days was lower in the perioperative piperacillin-tazobactam vs cefoxitin group (19.8% vs 32.8%; absolute difference, −13.0% [95% CI, −19.1% to −6.9%]; P P = .02) and clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistula (12.7% vs 19.0%; difference, −6.3% [95% CI, −11.4% to −1.2%]; P = .03). Mortality rates at 30 days were 1.3% (5/378) among participants treated with piperacillin-tazobactam and 2.5% (10/400) among those receiving cefoxitin (difference, −1.2% [95% CI, −3.1% to 0.7%]; P = .32).Conclusions and RelevanceIn participants undergoing open pancreatoduodenectomy, use of piperacillin-tazobactam as perioperative prophylaxis reduced postoperative SSI, pancreatic fistula, and multiple downstream sequelae of SSI. The findings support the use of piperacillin-tazobactam as standard care for open pancreatoduodenectomy.Trial RegistrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03269994

BACKGROUND: Access to health insurance and curative interventions [surgery/liver directed therapy (LDT)] affects survival for early-stage hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). The aim of this multi-institutional study of high-volume safety-net hospitals (SNHs) and their tertiary-academic-centers (AC) was to identify the impact of type/lack of insurance on survival disparities across hospitals, particularly SNHs whose mission is to minimize insurance related access to care barriers for vulnerable populations. METHODS: Early-stage HCC patients (2012-2014) from the US Safety-Net Collaborative were propensity-score matched by treatment at SNH/AC. Overall survival (OS) was the primary outcome. Multivariable Cox proportional-hazard analysis was performed accounting for sociodemographic and clinical parameters. RESULTS: Among 925 patients, those with no insurance (NI) had decreased curative surgery, compared to those with government insurance (GI) and private insurance [PI, (PI-SNH:60.5% vs. GI-SNH:33.1% vs. NI-SNH:13.6%, p

The neutrophil–lymphocyte ratio (NLR) has been proposed as a prognostic biomarker for cirrhosis and non-liver malignancies. We aimed to evaluate the prognostic value of NLR in a diverse cohort of patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). We performed a retrospective study of patients diagnosed with HCC between 2008 and 2017 at two large US health systems. We used Cox proportional hazard and multivariable ordinal logistic regression models to identify factors associated with overall survival and response to first HCC treatment, respectively. Primary variables of interest were baseline NLR and delta NLR, defined as the difference between pre- and post-treatment NLR. Among 1019 HCC patients, baseline NLR was 200 ng/mL (45.6% vs 33.8%). Baseline NLR ≥ 5 was independently associated with higher mortality (median survival 4.3 vs 15.1 months; adjusted HR 1.70, 95%CI 1.41–2.06), with differences in survival consistent across BCLC stages. After adjusting for baseline covariates including NLR, delta NLR > 0.26 was also independently associated with increased mortality (HR 1.42, 95%CI 1.14–1.78). In a secondary analysis, high NLR was associated with lower odds of response to HCC treatment (20.2% vs 31.6%; adjusted OR 0.55, 95%CI 0.32–0.95). In a large Western cohort of patients with HCC, high baseline NLR and delta NLR were independent predictors of mortality. NLR is an inexpensive test that may be a useful component of future HCC prognostic models.

The NCCN Guidelines for Hepatobiliary Cancers focus on the screening, diagnosis, staging, treatment, and management of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), gallbladder cancer, and cancer of the bile ducts (intrahepatic and extrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma). Due to the multiple modalities that can be used to treat the disease and the complications that can arise from comorbid liver dysfunction, a multidisciplinary evaluation is essential for determining an optimal treatment strategy. A multidisciplinary team should include hepatologists, diagnostic radiologists, interventional radiologists, surgeons, medical oncologists, and pathologists with hepatobiliary cancer expertise. In addition to surgery, transplant, and intra-arterial therapies, there have been great advances in the systemic treatment of HCC. Until recently, sorafenib was the only systemic therapy option for patients with advanced HCC. In 2020, the combination of atezolizumab and bevacizumab became the first regimen to show superior survival to sorafenib, gaining it FDA approval as a new frontline standard regimen for unresectable or metastatic HCC. This article discusses the NCCN Guidelines recommendations for HCC.

We report long-term outcomes from our phase 1 dose-escalation study to determine the maximum tolerated dose of single-fraction liver SABR pooled with our subsequent single institutional experience with patients treated postprotocol at the highest dose level (40 Gy) established from the phase 1 study.Patients with liver metastases from solid tumors located outside of the central liver zone were treated with single-fraction SABR on a phase 1 dose escalation trial. At least 700 cc of normal liver had to receive9.1 Gy. Seven patients with 10 liver metastases received the initial prescription dose of 35 Gy, and dose was then escalated to 40 Gy for 7 more patients with 7 liver metastases. An additional 19 postprotocol patients with 22 liver metastases were treated to 40 Gy in a single fraction. Patients were followed for toxicity and underwent serial imaging to assess local control.Median imaging follow-up for the combined cohort (n = 33, 39 lesions) was 25.9 months; 38.9 months for protocol patients and 20.2 months for postprotocol patients. Median lesion size was 2.0 cm (range, 0.5-5.0 cm). There were no dose-limiting toxicities observed for protocol patients, and only 3 grade 2 toxicities were observed in the entire cohort, with no grade ≥3 toxicities attributable to treatment. Four-year actuarial local control of irradiated lesions in the entire cohort was 96.6%, 100% in the protocol group and 92.9% in the subsequent patients. Two-year overall survival for all treated patients was 82.0%.For selected patients with liver metastases, single-fraction SABR at doses of 35 and 40 Gy was safe and well-tolerated, and shows excellent local control with long-term follow-up; results in subsequent patients treated with single-fraction SABR doses of 40 Gy confirmed our earlier results.

To evaluate the inter-reader reproducibility and prognostic accuracy of the Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System (LI-RADS) treatment response algorithm (LR-TR) at the time of initial post-treatment evaluation following drug-eluting beads transarterial chemoembolization (DEB-TACE) for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). This retrospective study included patients with HCC who underwent first-line DEB-TACE between January 2011 and December 2015. Six readers (three fellowship-trained radiologists and three radiology trainees) independently assessed lesion-level response in up to two treated lesions per LR-TR and modified Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (mRECIST)-target criteria, as well as patient-level response per mRECIST-overall criteria, on the initial post-treatment CT/MRI. Inter-reader agreement was calculated by Fleiss’ multi-reader κ. We tested whether LR-TR, mRECIST-target, and mRECIST-overall response were associated with overall survival using Kaplan–Meier and Cox proportional hazard model analyses. A total of 82 patients with 113 treated target lesions were included. Inter-reader agreement was moderate for LR-TR and mRECIST-overall (κ range 0.42–0.57), and substantial for mRECIST-target (κ range 0.62–0.66), among all three reader-groups: all readers, experienced readers, and less-experienced readers. LR-TR and mRECIST-target response were not significantly associated with overall survival regardless of reader experience (P > 0.05). In contrast, mRECIST-overall response was significantly associated with overall survival when assessed by all readers (P = 0.02) and experienced readers (P = 0.03), but not by the less-experienced readers (P = 0.35). Although LR-TR algorithm has moderate inter-reader reproducibility, it alone may not predict overall survival on the initial post-treatment CT/MRI after first-line DEB-TACE for HCC.

BACKGROUND: Widespread HCV treatment for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) patients remains limited. Our aim was to evaluate the association of HCV treatment with survival and assess barriers to treatment. METHODS: Patients in the U.S. Safety Net Collaborative with HCV and HCC were included. Primary outcome was overall survival (OS). Secondary outcomes were recurrence-free survival (RFS) and barriers to receiving HCV treatment. RESULTS: Of 941 patients, 57% received care at tertiary referral centers (n=533), 74% did not receive HCV treatment (n=696), 6% underwent resection (n=54), 17% liver transplant (n=163), 50% liver-directed therapy (n=473), and 7% chemotherapy (n=60). HCV treatment was associated with improved OS compared to no HCV treatment (70 vs 21 months, p

Adrenocortical carcinoma (ACC) is a rare but aggressive malignancy, and many prognostic factors that influence survival remain undefined. Individually, the GRAS (Grade, Resection status, Age, and Symptoms of hormone hypersecretion) parameters have demonstrated their prognostic value in ACC. This study aimed to assess the value of a cumulative GRAS score as a prognostic indicator after ACC resection. A retrospective cohort study of adult patients who underwent surgical resection for ACC between 1993 and 2014 was performed using the United States Adrenocortical Carcinoma Group (US-ACCG) database. A sum GRAS score was calculated for each patient by adding one point each when the criteria were met for tumor grade (Weiss criteria ≥ 3 or Ki67 ≥ 20%), resection status (micro- or macroscopically positive margin), age (≥ 50 years), and preoperative symptoms of hormone hypersecretion (present). Overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) by cumulative GRAS score were analyzed by the Kaplan–Meier method and log-rank test. Of the 265 patients in the US-ACCG database, 243 (92%) had sufficient data available to calculate a cumulative GRAS score and were included in this analysis. The 265 patients comprised 23 patients (10%) with a GRAS of 0, 52 patients (21%) with a GRAS of 1, 92 patients (38%) with a GRAS of 2, 63 patients (26%) with a GRAS of 3, and 13 patients (5%) with a GRAS of 4. An increasing GRAS score was associated with shortened OS (p < 0.01) and DFS (p < 0.01) after index resection. In this retrospective analysis, the cumulative GRAS score effectively stratified OS and DFS after index resection for ACC. Further prospective analysis is required to validate the cumulative GRAS score as a prognostic indicator for clinical use.

Performance of technically complex surgery at high-volume (HV) centers is associated with improved outcomes. The aim of this study was to assess whether hospital gastrectomy volume is associated with surgical outcomes, and what threshold of case volume meaningfully impacts surgical outcomes. We conducted a retrospective review of adult NCDB patients with gastric adenocarcinoma undergoing gastrectomy between 2004 and 2015. A multivariable Cox proportional hazards model with restricted cubic splines was used to examine the association of annual hospital gastrectomy volume and overall survival. Bootstrap simulation was used to estimate the cut-point corresponding to maximum change in log hazard ratio. Hospitals were divided into HV (≥ 17 cases/year) and low-volume (LV

Accurate clinical staging (CS) of gastric cancer is critical for appropriate treatment selection and prognostication, but CS remains highly imprecise. Our study evaluates factors associated with inaccurate CS, the impact of inaccurate CS on outcomes, and utilization of adjuvant therapy in patients who are understaged. We conducted a retrospective review of NCDB patients diagnosed with clinical early stage gastric adenocarcinoma (cT1-2N0M0) between 2004 and 2016. Patients not undergoing upfront gastrectomy or with missing pathologic staging were excluded. Patients were classified as accurately staged, inaccurately staged with receipt of adjuvant therapy (IS+), and inaccurately staged with no receipt of adjuvant therapy (IS−). Logistic regression was utilized to assess the impact of factors on CS accuracy and receipt of adjuvant therapies. Kaplan–Meier and Cox proportional hazard methods were used for survival analysis. Approximately 40% of patients were inaccurately staged (IS). cT2, moderately/poorly differentiated, and site-overlapping tumors were associated with increased likelihood of being IS. Treatment at an academic facility was associated with decreased likelihood of understaging. Only 54% of patients who were IS received adjuvant therapy. Accurate CS of gastric cancer remains inadequate. Understaging is associated with detrimental effects on receiving guideline-concordant care and, possibly, patient outcomes. Targeted interventions reducing the proportion of understaged patients and ensuring receipt of appropriate therapy is needed to optimize outcomes. Patients with high-risk disease that are frequently understaged may benefit from selective neoadjuvant therapy. Centralization of gastric cancer care may also be a key strategy in improving receipt of guideline-concordant therapies.

Despite advances in treatment options for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), 5-year survival for HCC remains below 20%. This poor survival is multifactorial but is partly related to underuse of curative treatment in clinical practice. In light of growing treatment options, delivered by different types of providers, optimal management requires input from multiple specialties. A multidisciplinary approach has been evolving over the past couple of decades, bringing different specialists together to develop a therapeutic plan to treat and manage HCC, which significantly increases timely guideline-concordant treatment and improves overall survival. The present review attempts to highlight the need for such a multimodal approach by providing insights on its potential structure and impact on the various aspects of HCC management.

787 Background: Social vulnerability is a federal metric used to assess a community’s resilience in facing external stressors from disease or disaster. The social vulnerability index (SVI) includes 15 social factors obtained at the census tract level within counties and ranks them along 4 themes – socioeconomic status, household composition and disability, minority status & language, and housing/transportation. Social vulnerability has never been explored at the census tract level in any malignancy and the Texas cancer registry provides granular detail at both the patient and census block group level not available in national datasets. We sought to characterize the relationship between social vulnerability and survival in gastrointestinal cancers, as well as its potential to identify themes for focused interventions to mitigate disparities. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed 196,651 patients with colorectal (CRC), gastric (GC), pancreatic (PDAC), and hepatocellular cancer (HCC) from the Texas Cancer Registry from 2004-2019. We analyzed patient demographics, social vulnerability (SVI), individual poverty index (PI), and clinicopathologic factors to understand their impact on survival at 2 years. Unadjusted and covariable-adjusted cox proportional hazards were used for survival analysis. Values were considered significant at pth percentile for the minority/language theme. At 2 years, individual poverty at 5-9%, 10-19%, and >20% of the federal poverty line (HR 1.06, 95%CI 1.03 - 1.09; HR 1.09, 95%CI 1.06 - 1.12; HR 1.13, 95%CI 1.10 - 1.17) was associated with increased risk of death. Medicaid as primary insurance, (HR 1.41, 95%CI 1.36 - 1.47), SVI socioeconomic status (HR 1.18, 95%CI 1.13 - 1.24), and household composition themes (HR 1.06, 95%CI 1.02 - 1.10) also associated with increased likelihood of death at 2 years. Notably, the minority theme was associated with improved survival (HR 0.85, 95%CI 0.82 - 0.89). Conclusions: Across four GI cancers, social vulnerability and poverty independently predicted survival at 2 years. Among SVI themes, socioeconomic status was the strongest predictor of worse survival, and the minority theme was associated with improved survival, potentially reflecting the Hispanic paradox. These findings suggest that the SVI may be used as a tool for identifying where resources can be targeted at a local level to mediate the survival disparity for vulnerable populations with GI malignancies.

BACKGROUND: Prophylactic drainage following hepatectomy is frequently performed despite evidence that drainage is unnecessary. It is unknown to what extent drain use is influenced by hospital practice patterns. The objectives of this study were to identify factors associated with the use of prophylactic drains following hepatectomy and assess hospital variation in drain use. METHODS: Retrospective cohort study of patients following hepatectomy without concomitant bowel resection or biliary reconstruction from the ACS NSQIP Hepatectomy Targeted Dataset. Factors associated with the use of prophylactic drains were identified using multivariable logistic regression and hospital-level variation in drain use was assessed. RESULTS: Analysis included 10,530 patients at 130 hospitals. Overall, 42.3% of patients had a prophylactic drain placed following hepatectomy. Patients were more likely to receive prophylactic drains if they were ≥65 years old (adjusted odds ratio [aOR]: 1.34, 95%CI: 1.16–1.56), underwent major hepatectomy (aOR: 1.42, 95%CI 1.15–1.74), or had an open resection (aOR 1.94, 95%CI 1.49–2.53). There was notable hospital variability in drain use (range: 0% to 100% of patients), and 77.5% of measured variation in drain placement was at the hospital level. CONCLUSION: Prophylactic drains are commonly placed in both major and minor hepatectomy. While some patient factors are associated with drain use, hospital-specific patterns appear to be a major driver and represent a target for improvement.