Search

Background Family and other unpaid caregivers play an active role in the recovery of individuals with pancreatic and periampullary cancer after pancreatectomy. However, little is known about caregivers’ experiences and how to better support them. Methods Caregivers accompanying patients to 1-month postpancreatectomy visits at 3 hospitals completed an electronic survey between November 2018 and February 2020. We examine measures of absenteeism and work productivity loss among the subset of caregivers who reported working for pay and comparatively assess caregiver experiences by employment status. All analyses were performed as 2-sided tests. Results Of 265 caregivers approached for study participation, 240 (90.6%) enrolled. Caregivers were primarily female (70.8% female, 29.2% male) and spouses (58.3%) or adult children (25.8%) of patients, with a median age of 60 years. Of the 240 caregivers included in the study, 107 (44.6%) worked for pay. Nearly half (44.4%) of working caregivers reported being absent from work because of caregiving amounting to a 14% loss in work hours. While at work, 58.9% of working caregivers reported increased work difficulty as a result of caregiving. Taken together, an estimated 59.7% loss in work productivity was experienced because of caregiving in the month following pancreatectomy. After adjustment for sociodemographic factors, working (vs nonworking) caregivers reported increased financial (odds ratio [OR] = 2.32; P = .04) and emotional (OR = 1.93; P = .04) difficulties and daily activity restrictions (OR = 1.85; P = .048). Conclusions Working caregivers of patients with pancreatic and periampullary cancer experience negative impacts on work and productivity, and caregiving-related financial and emotional difficulties may be amplified. This study highlights the need for workplace policies to support unpaid cancer caregiving.

PURPOSE Patients with pancreatic and periampullary cancers may experience significant reduction in their quality of life and often rely on family and unpaid caregivers for assistance after surgery. However, as caregivers are not systematically identified, little is known about the nature, difficulty, and personal demands of assistance they provide. We aim to assess the frequency and difficulty of specific assistance caregivers provide and identify potential interventions that could alleviate the caregiving demands. METHODS This was a prospective, multi-institutional study of caregivers accompanying patients with periampullary and pancreatic cancer at their 1-month postpancreatectomy office visit. An instrument that drew heavily on the National Study of Caregiving was administered to caregivers. RESULTS Of 240 caregivers, more than half (58.3%) of caregivers were the patients' spouse, a quarter (25.8%) were daughters or sons, 12.9% other relatives, and 2.9% nonrelatives. Caregivers least frequently provided assistance with transportation (14.6% every day) and most frequently provided assistance with housework (65.0% every day, P = .003) and diet (56.5% every day, P = .004). Caregivers reported the least difficulty helping patients with exercise (1.5% somewhat difficult). Caregivers reported significantly more difficulty with assisting with housework (14.5% somewhat difficult, P < .001) and diet (14.9% somewhat difficult, P < .001). Caregivers identified the immediate postpancreatectomy and early discharge periods as the most stressful phases. They also reported having received very little information about available services that could have supported their efforts. CONCLUSION Caregivers of patients with periampullary or pancreatic cancer provide considerable assistance in the postoperative period and many reported difficulty in assisting with housework and diet. Work is needed to better prepare and support caregivers to better enable them to adequately care for patients with pancreas and periampullary cancer.

PURPOSE: Preoperative therapy for pancreatic cancer represents a new treatment option with the potential to improve outcomes for patients, yet with complex risks. By not discussing the potential risks and benefits of new treatment options, clinicians may hinder patients from making informed decisions. METHODS: From 2017 to 2019, we conducted a mixed-methods study. First, we elicited clinicians' (n = 13 medical, radiation, and surgery clinicians), patients' (n = 18), and caregivers' (n = 14) perceptions of information needed for decision making regarding preoperative therapy and generated a list of key elements. Next, we audio-recorded patients' (n = 20) initial multidisciplinary oncology visits and used qualitative content analyses to describe how clinicians discussed this information and surveyed patients to ask if they heard each key element. RESULTS: We identified 13 key elements of information patients need when making decisions regarding preoperative therapy, including treatment complications, alternatives, logistics, and potential outcomes. Patients reported hearing infrequently about complications (eg, hospitalizations [n = 3 of 20]) and alternatives (n = 8 of 20) but frequently recalled logistics and potential outcomes (eg, likelihood of surgery [n = 19 of 20]). Clinicians infrequently discussed complications (eg, hospitalizations [n = 7 of 20]), but frequently discussed alternatives, logistics, and potential outcomes (eg, likelihood of surgery [n = 20 of 20]). No overarching differences in clinician discussion content emerged to explain why patients did or did not hear about each key element. CONCLUSION: We identified key elements of information patients with pancreatic cancer need when considering preoperative therapy. Patients infrequently heard about treatment complications and alternatives, while frequently hearing about logistics and potential outcomes, underscoring areas for improvement in educating patients about new treatment options in oncology.

The eighth edition of the American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) staging manual's TNM staging classification for gastric neuroendocrine tumors has been shown to have poor prognostic discriminability. The aim of present study was to propose a modified T-stage classification, and externally validate its performance in a separate population data registry.A modified T-stage classification with tumor size and extent of tumor invasion was generated from the National Cancer Database between 2004 and 2014 (n = 1249). External validation was performed using the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results registry between 1973 and 2013 (n = 539).In the National Cancer Database population, using the AJCC T-stage classification, the 5-y survival rates were 85.7%, 80.8%, 64.5%, and 46.1% in T1, T2, T3, and T4 patients respectively (P0.001). These rates were more contrasting with the modified T-stage (mT) classification at 87.0%, 78.2%, 59.0%, and 40.3% respectively (P0.001). When patients within each of the AJCC T stages were stratified by mT stages, significant survival heterogeneity was observed within each of the AJCC T2 to T4 stages (P0.01). Conversely, when mT stages were stratified by AJCC T stage, no survival difference was observed in any of the mT stages (P0.05). The same analyses were performed using Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results data, and all the observed results were validated.The current AJCC T stage classification categorizes patients into groups with heterogenous prognosis, thus failing to serve as an effective staging tool. A modified T-stage classification demonstrated significantly improved stratification for patients with gastric neuroendocrine tumors.

The incidence of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) has been rising, and 80% of HCCs are unresectable at the time of presentation. In recent years, Yttrium-90 (Y90) radioembolization has arisen as a potential tool to treat the primary HCC tumor while also inducing contralateral liver hypertrophy to increase future liver remnant volumes. The goal of this multidisciplinary review is to summarize the contemporary evidence on the safety, efficacy, and utility of Y90 as a bridge to liver resection and transplant in patients with HCC. A narrative review was conducted of the recent literature regarding the utilization of Y90 as a therapy prior to liver resection or transplant in patients with HCC. A specific emphasis was placed on articles published in the last 10 years. Y90 radioembolization has demonstrated a high safety profile and increasing utility in bridging and downstaging patients with HCC who subsequently undergo liver resection or transplant. The continuous advancements in treatment strategies and radiation dosimetry have paved the way for the incorporation of Y90 in all stages of HCC with different intents, including downstaging and bridging. Y90 radioembolization can be safely used in the HCC population to bridge patients to resection or transplantation, induce future liver remnant growth, and select for less aggressive tumor biology prior to surgery.

As the SARS-COV-2 pandemic created the need for social distancing and the implementation of nonessential travel bans, residency and fellowship programs have moved toward a web-based virtual process for applicant interviews. As part of the Society of Asian Academic Surgeons 5th Annual Meeting, an expert panel was convened to provide guidance for prospective applicants who are new to the process. This article provides perspectives from applicants who have successfully navigated the surgical subspecialty fellowship process, as well as program leadership who have held virtual interviews.

Long-term pancreatoduodenectomy (PD) survivors have previously reported favorable quality of life (QoL). However, there has been a paucity of studies utilizing pancreas-specific modules for QoL assessment, which may uncover disability that general modules cannot detect. The European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) QLQ-C30 and QLQ-PAN26 questionnaires were administered to PD survivors who were at least 5 years out of their operations for neoplasms (1998–2011, study cohort) and compared their scores with published preoperative scores of patients with pancreatic cancer (control cohort). The clinical relevance (CR) of differences was scored as small (5–10), moderate (10–20), or large (> 20) based on validated interpretation of clinically important differences. Of 1266 patients who underwent PD, there were 305 survivors with valid contact information, of whom 248 responded to the questionnaire (response rate 81.3%) and made up the study cohort. The median follow-up was 9.1 years (range 5.1–21.2 years). When compared with the control cohort, patients in the study cohort reported higher pancreatic pain (41.7 ± 17.6 vs. 18.1 ± 20.5, p

Prior literature suggests that cancer patients with hyperglycemia and type 2 diabetes mellitus (DM) exhibit worse oncologic and overall outcomes. Tumor metabolism and anabolism pathophysiology may explain this association, although this has not been adequately studied in adrenocortical carcinoma (ACC). We hypothesized that DM would be associated with worse oncological outcomes in ACC, and we utilized data from a national database and institutional sources for multimodal analysis. Both a multi-institutional database (the Collaborative Endocrine Surgery Quality Improvement Program or CESQIP) and a single-center longitudinal cohort (Dana Farber Cancer Institute or DFCI) were queried as unique retrospective cohorts to identify patients with ACC. Patient demographics, tumor characteristics, DM-specific variables, and oncologic outcome data were assessed. Results were analyzed via univariate analysis and multivariable linear regression analysis. Statistical significance was defined as p 110 mg/dL had increased risk (HR 36.3, 95% confidence interval 1.6, 831.3) for all-cause mortality. This multi-institutional, multimodal analysis suggests that patients with DM have worse oncologic and overall outcomes for ACC. While further study is warranted, consideration should be given among clinicians to optimize glycemic control as part of their ACC management.

BACKGROUND: Healthcare policies have focused on centralizing care to high-volume centers in an effort to optimize patient outcomes. However, little is known about patients’ and caregivers’ considerations and selection process when selecting hospitals for care. We aim to explore how patients and caregivers select hospitals for complex cancer care and to develop a taxonomy for their selection considerations. METHODS: Qualitative study in which data were gathered from in-depth interviews conducted from March to November 2019 among patients with hepatopancreatobiliary cancers who were scheduled to undergo a pancreatectomy (n=20) at a metropolitan, urban regional or suburban medical center and their caregivers (n=10). RESULTS: The interviews revealed 6 broad domains that characterized hospital selection considerations: hospital factors, team characteristics, travel distance to hospital, referral or recommendation, continuity of care, and insurance considerations. The identified domains were similar between participants seen at the metropolitan center and urban/suburban medical centers with the following exceptions: participants receiving care specifically at the metropolitan center noted operative volume and access to specific services like clinical trials in their hospital selection; participants receiving care at urban/suburban centers noted health insurance considerations and having access to existing medical records in their hospital selection. CONCLUSIONS: This study delineates the many considerations of patients and caregivers when selecting hospitals for complex cancer care. These identified domains should be incorporated into the development and implementation of centralization policies to help increase patient access to high quality cancer care that is consistent with their priorities and needs.

ImportanceThe risk and timing of suicide among patients who undergo surgery for cancer remain largely unknown, and, to our knowledge, there are currently no organized programs in place to implement regular suicide screening among this patient population.ObjectiveTo evaluate the incidence, timing, and factors associated with suicide among patients undergoing cancer operations.Design, Setting, and ParticipantsThis retrospective population-based cohort study used data from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program database to examine the incidence of suicide, compared with the general US population, and timing of suicide among patients undergoing surgery for the 15 deadliest cancers in the US from 2000 to 2016. A Fine-Gray competing risks regression model was used to identify factors associated with an increased risk of suicide among patients in the cohort. Data were analyzed from September 2021 to January 2022.ExposuresSurgery for cancer.Main Outcomes and MeasuresIncidence, compared with the general US population, timing, and factors associated with suicide after surgery for cancer.ResultsFrom 2000 to 2016, 1 811 397 patients (74.4% female; median [IQR] age, 62.0 [52.0-72.0] years) met study inclusion criteria. Of these patients, 1494 (0.08%) committed suicide after undergoing surgery for cancer. The incidence of suicide, compared with the general US population, was statistically significantly higher among patients undergoing surgery for cancers of the larynx (standardized mortality ratio [SMR], 4.02; 95% CI, 2.67-5.81), oral cavity and pharynx (SMR, 2.43; 95% CI, 1.93-3.03), esophagus (SMR, 2.25; 95% CI, 1.43-3.38), bladder (SMR, 2.09; 95% CI, 1.53-2.78), pancreas (SMR, 2.08; 95% CI, 1.29-3.19), lung (SMR, 1.73; 95% CI, 1.47-2.02), stomach (SMR, 1.70; 95% CI, 1.22-2.31), ovary (SMR, 1.64; 95% CI, 1.13-2.31), brain (SMR, 1.61; 95% CI, 1.12-2.26), and colon and rectum (SMR, 1.28; 95% CI, 1.16-1.40). Approximately 3%, 21%, and 50% of suicides were committed within the first month, first year, and first 3 years after surgery, respectively. Patients who were male, White, and divorced or single were at greatest risk of suicide.Conclusions and RelevanceIn this cohort study, the incidence of suicide among patients undergoing cancer operations was statistically significantly elevated compared with the general population, highlighting the need for programs to actively implement regular suicide screening among such patients, especially those whose demographic and tumor characteristics are associated with the highest suicide risk.

Background The prognostic significance of the platelet (PLR) and neutrophil (NLR) to lymphocyte ratios for patients with resectable colorectal cancer liver metastases (CLM) was evaluated. Methods Clinicopathologic data from patients who underwent hepatectomy for CLM at two tertiary care hospitals between 1995 and 2017 were collected. Blood counts were evaluated for prognostic significance. Results 151 patients met inclusion criteria. The median age was 58 years, 44% were female, and 58% had synchronous metastases. Median number of liver metastases was 2, and 59% of patients underwent lobectomy or extended lobectomy. On multivariable analysis, NLR ≥5 (HR 2.46 [1.08–5.60 CI], p = 0.032), PLR ≥ 220 (HR 2.10 [1.04–4.23 CI], p = 0.037), and greater than 2 liver metastases (HR 2.41 [1.06–5.45 CI], p = 0.035) were associated with reduced overall survival. Conclusions PLR ≥ 220 and NLR ≥ 5 may have utility as preoperative prognostic markers for overall survival in patients with resectable CLM.

BACKGROUND: Older adults with gastrointestinal cancers undergoing surgery often experience poor outcomes, such as prolonged postoperative hospital length of stay (LOS), intensive care unit (ICU) use, hospital readmissions, and complications. Involvement of geriatricians in the care of older adults with cancer can improve outcomes. We conducted a randomized trial of a perioperative geriatric intervention (PERI-OP) in older patients with gastrointestinal cancer undergoing surgery. METHODS: From 9/2016-4/2019, we randomly assigned patients age ≥65 with gastrointestinal cancer planning to undergo surgical resection to receive PERI-OP or usual care. Patients assigned to PERI-OP met with a geriatrician preoperatively in the outpatient setting and postoperatively as an inpatient consultant. The primary outcome was postoperative hospital LOS. Secondary outcomes included postoperative ICU use, 90-day hospital readmission rates, and complication rates. We conducted intention-to-treat (ITT) and per-protocol (PP) analyses. RESULTS: ITT analyses included 137/160 patients who underwent surgery (usual care=68/78, intervention=69/82). PP analyses included the 68 usual care patients and the 30/69 intervention patients who received the preoperative and postoperative intervention components. ITT analyses demonstrated no significant differences between intervention and usual care in postoperative hospital LOS (7.23 vs 8.21 days, P=0.374), ICU use (23.2% vs 32.4%, P=0.257), 90-day hospital readmission rates (21.7% vs 25.0%, P=0.690), and complication rates (17.4% vs 20.6%, P=0.668). In PP analyses, intervention patients had shorter postoperative hospital LOS (5.90 vs 8.21 days, P=0.024), but differences in ICU use (13.3% vs 32.4%, P=0.081), 90-day hospital readmission rates (16.7% vs 25.0%, P=0.439), and complication rates (6.7% vs 20.6%, P=0.137) remained non-significant. CONCLUSIONS: In this randomized trial, PERI-OP did not have a significant impact on postoperative hospital LOS, ICU use, hospital readmissions, or complications. However, the subgroup who received PERI-OP as planned experienced encouraging results. Future studies of PERI-OP should include efforts, such as telehealth, to ensure the intervention is delivered as planned.

To identify disparities in access to NAT for PDAC at the prehospital and intrahospital phases of care.Delivery of NAT in PDAC is susceptible to disparities in access. There are limited data that accurately locate the etiology of disparities at the prehospital and intrahospital phases of care.Retrospective cohort of patients ≥18 years old with clinical stage I-II PDAC from the 2010-2016 National Cancer Database. Multiple logistic regression was used to assess 2 sequential outcomes: (1) access to an NAT facility (prehospital phase) and (2) receipt of NAT at an NAT facility (intrahospital phase).A total of 36,208 patients were included for analysis in the prehospital phase of care. Higher education, longer travel distances, being treated at academic/research or integrated network cancer programs, and more recent year of diagnosis were independently associated with receipt of treatment at an NAT facility.All patients treated at NAT facilities (31,099) were included for the second analysis. Higher education level and receiving care at an academic/research facility were independently associated with increased receipt of NAT. Non-Black racial minorities (including American Indian, Asian, Pacific Islanders), being Hispanic, being uninsured, and having Medicaid insurance were associated with decreased receipt of NAT at NAT facilities.Non-Black racial minorities and Hispanic patients were less likely to receive NAT at NAT facilities compared to White and non-Hispanic patients, respectively. Discrepancies in administration of NAT while being treated at NAT facilities exist and warrant urgent further investigation.

Hospital volume has been shown to be inversely correlated with surgical mortality rates in complex surgery including pancreatectomy.1, 2 Based on this, there has been a push for regionalization of complex surgical procedures to high-volume centers, with several major medical health systems pledging to adopt the policy.3, 4 However, regionalization may increase travelling times, which imposes financial burdens and time demands on patients.5 On one hand, the intended mortality benefit may be realized if patients are able and willing to travel the added distance for better outcomes. For example, many would be willing to travel for vacation and major purchases, and should therefore be even more willing to do so for their own health care. On the other hand, not all patients have the needed resources to travel, especially marginalized populations. Moreover, it is important to note that while the added travel may only equate to a single trip for the patient’s operation, it will translate to multiple trips for their family members and loved ones, including additional overnight lodging that are not covered by insurance. Additionally, the added travel time would also factor into the needed preoperative clinic, postoperative follow-up, adjuvant treatment and long-term surveillance appointments. Before this debate can be appropriately addressed, the first step is to quantitatively assess the real-world magnitude of the impact of a volume-based regionalization policy on travel times. Therefore, the aim of this study is to simulate the regionalization of pancreatectomies to quantitatively assess the impact of a proposed low-volume threshold policy on spatial access in terms of patient and family driving times. We selected pancreatectomy as the procedure of choice given that hospital volume had the most drastic impact on perioperative mortality compared to other gastrointestinal operations.2 We hypothesized that a simulated regionalization policy would significantly increase the required driving times for patients undergoing pancreatectomy and their families.

Many studies have demonstrated associations between surgical resections at academic centers and improved outcomes, particularly for complex operations. However, few studies have examined this relationship in intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (ICC). The hypothesis of this study was that facility type is associated with improved postoperative outcomes and survival for patients with ICC who undergo resection. Patients with stages 1 to 3 ICC who underwent hepatectomy were identified using the National Cancer Database (NCDB) (2004–2014). Facilities were categorized as academic or community centers per Commission on Cancer designations. High-volume hospitals were those that performed 11 or more hepatectomies per year. Multilevel logistic mixed-effects models to identify predictors of outcomes and parametric survival-time models were used to determine overall survival (OS). The study identified 2256 patients. Of these patients, 423 (18.8%) were treated at community centers, and 1833 (81.3%) were treated at academic centers. Nearly all high-volume centers were academic facilities (98.5% academic vs. 1.5% community centers), whereas low-volume centers were mixed (65.5% academic vs. 34.5% community centers) (p

OBJECTIVE: To establish an international core set of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) selected by both patients and healthcare providers (HCPs) from the United States (US), Europe, and Asia. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: PROs are increasingly recognized in pancreatic cancer studies. There is no consensus on which of the many available PROs are most important. METHODS: A multicenter Delphi study among patients with pancreatic cancer (curative- and palliative-setting) and HCPs in 6 pancreatic centers in the US (Baltimore, Boston), Europe (Amsterdam, Verona), and Asia (Mumbai, Seoul) was performed. In round 1, participants rated the importance of 56 PROs on a 1 to 9 Likert scale. PROs rated as very important (scores 7-9) by the majority (≥80%) of curative- and/or palliative-patients as well as HCPs were included in the core set. PROs not fulfilling these criteria were presented again in round 2, together with feedback on individual and group ratings. Remaining PROs were ranked based on the importance ratings. RESULTS: In total 731 patients and HCPs were invited, 501 completed round 1, and 420 completed both rounds. This included 204 patients in curative-setting, 74 patients in palliative-setting, and 142 HCPs. After 2 rounds, 8 PROs were included in the core set: general quality of life, general health, physical ability, ability to work/do usual activities, fear of recurrence, satisfaction with services/care organization, abdominal complaints, and relationship with partner/family. CONCLUSIONS: This international Delphi study among patients and HCPs established a core set of PROs in pancreatic cancer, which should facilitate the design of future pancreatic cancer trials and outcomes research.

We aimed to study the contributing factors and costs of malpractice claims involving the surgical management of benign biliary disease given the emotional, physical, and financial toll of these claims on patients, providers, and the healthcare system.Cholecystectomy complications carry significant morbidity and rank among the leading sources of surgical malpractice claims.Using the CRICO Strategies' Comparative Benchmarking System database, representing approximately 30% of all paid and unpaid malpractice claims in the United States, 4081 closed claims filed against general surgeons from 1995 to 2015 were reviewed to isolate 745 cholecystectomy-related claims. A multivariable model was used to determine factors associated with claim outcome.The most common associated complications included bile duct injury (n = 397), bowel perforation (n = 96), and hemorrhage (n = 78). Bile duct injuries were recognized intraoperatively only 19% of the time and required biliary reconstruction surgery 77% of the time. The total cost for all claims over the study period was over $128 M and the median time from event to case close was over 3 years. 40% of claims resulted in patient payout; of these, most claims were settled out of court and the median cost per claim was $264,650. For the 60% of claims not resulting in patient payout, most cases were denied, dropped, or dismissed, yet still averaged over $15,000 per claim in legal and administrative fees. On multivariable analysis, bile duct injury, bowel perforation, and high clinical severity were associated with patient payout, while a resident or fellow being named in a claim was negatively associated with patient payout (P0.05).Cholecystectomy-related claims are costly and time-consuming. Strategies that reduce the risk and aid in recognition of cholecystectomy complications, as well as advance support of patients and families after poor outcomes, may improve clinical care and reduce claim burden.

The implementation of upfront, preoperative habilitation (“prehabilitation”), as opposed to postoperative habilitation (rehabilitation), provides a unique opportunity to optimize surgical outcomes, while ensuring that patients receive necessary conditioning that may otherwise be significantly delayed by postoperative complications. In this review, opportunities to design, implement, monitor, and evaluate a surgical prehabilitation program in colorectal surgery are discussed, and broken down to include emotional, physical, and nutritional aspects of care in the preoperative setting.

Whether prevention strategy for postoperative venous thromboembolism (VTE) should be tailored across racial groups remains unknown.Patients who underwent major abdominal operation in the Nationwide Inpatient Sample (NIS) were examined. Our primary outcome was postoperative VTE, and the secondary outcome was postoperative bleeding. Multivariable logistic regression analyses were performed and validated with the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) database.781,888 patients from NIS were analyzed. Overall VTE rate was 2.0%. Compared to White patients, Hispanic (OR 0.85, 95% CI 0.78-0.93, p 0.01) and Asian patients (OR 0.49, 95% CI 0.40-0.61, p 0.01) had significantly lower risks for VTE. In contrast, Asian patients had a significantly higher risk of bleeding (OR 1.39, 95% CI 1.24-1.56, p 0.01). Similar trends were observed in NSQIP.The risk-benefit ratio of postoperative VTE prophylaxis for Asian patients is roughly three times higher than that for White patients, suggesting a tailored approach is necessary.

Pancreatic surgery is complex and associated with high morbidity rates. While safety of pancreatectomy has dramatically improved over the last few decades secondary to improvements in techniques and perioperative care, there is still wide variation in outcomes across facilities performing these specialized procedures. In recent years, there has been a wide array of solitary and composite quality metrics that have been proposed and utilized in the literature. Within this chapter, we review commonly used quality metrics in pancreatic surgery, and discuss each of their individual limitations to help readers better understand and interpret published metrics across the literature.

Objective To test the hypothesis that complete, tumor-free resection at the pancreatic neck, achieved either en-bloc or non-en-bloc (ie, revision based on intraoperative frozen section [FS] analysis), is associated with improved survival as compared with incomplete resection (IR) in pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma. Summary background data Given the likely systemic nature of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma, the oncologic benefit of achieving a histologically complete local resection, particularly through revision of a positive intraoperative FS at the pancreatic neck, remains controversial. Methods Clinicopathologic and treatment data were reviewed for 986 consecutive patients with ductal adenocarcinoma at the head, neck, or uncinate process of the pancreas who underwent open pancreatectomy as well as intraoperative FS analysis between 1998 and 2012 at Massachusetts General Hospital and between 1998 and 2013 at the University of Verona. Overall survival (OS) and perioperative morbidity and mortality were compared across 3 groups: complete resection achieved en-bloc (CR-EB), complete resection achieved non-en-bloc (CR-NEB), and IR. Results The CR-EB cohort comprised 749 (76%) patients, CR-NEB 159 patients (16%), and IR 78 patients (8%). Other than a higher incidence of vascular resection among CR-NEB and IR patients, no demographic, pathologic (eg, tumor grade, lymph node positivity, superior mesenteric artery involvement), or treatment factors (eg, neoadjuvant and adjuvant therapy use) differed between the groups. Median OS was significantly higher in patients with CR-EB (28 mo, P = 0.01) and CR-NEB resections (24 mo, P = 0.02) as compared with patients with IR resections (19 mo). After adjusting for clinicopathologic and treatment characteristics, CR-EB and CR-NEB margin status were found to be independent predictors of improved OS (relative to IR, CR-EB hazard ratio [HR] 0.65, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.49-0.86; CR-NEB HR 0.69, 95% CI 0.50-0.96). There were no intergroup differences in perioperative morbidity and mortality, including rates of pancreatic fistula. Conclusions For patients with ductal adenocarcinoma at the head, neck, or uncinate process of the pancreas undergoing pancreatectomy, complete tumor extirpation via either en-bloc or non-en-bloc complete resection based on FS analysis is associated with improved OS, without an associated increased perioperative morbidity or mortality.

Objective A resident-run minor surgery clinic was developed to increase resident procedural autonomy. We evaluated whether 1) there was a significant difference between complications and patient satisfaction when procedures were independently performed by surgical residents vs. a surgical attending and 2) if participation was associated with an increase in resident procedural confidence. Design Third year general surgery residents participated in a weekly procedure clinic from 2014-2018. Post-procedure complications and patient satisfaction were compared between patients operated on by residents vs. the staff surgeon. Residents were surveyed regarding their confidence in independently performing a variety of clinic-based patient care tasks. Setting Massachusetts General Hospital General in Boston, MA; an academic tertiary care general surgery residency program. Participants Post-graduate year three general surgery residents that ran the clinic as part of a general surgery rotation. Results 1230 patients underwent 1592 procedures (612 in resident clinic, 980 in attending clinic). There was no significant difference in the 30-day complication rate between patients operated on by the resident vs. attending (2.5% vs. 1.9%, p = 0.49). 459 patient satisfaction surveys were administered with a 79.1% response rate. There was no significant difference in the overall quality of care rating between residents and the attending surgeon (87.5% top-box rating vs. 93.1%, p = 0.15). Twenty-one residents completed both a pre- and post-rotation survey (77.8% response rate). The proportion of residents indicating that they could independently perform a variety of patient care tasks significantly increased across the rotation (all p Conclusion Mid-level general surgery residents can independently perform office-based procedures without detriment to safety or patient satisfaction. The resident-run procedure clinic serves as an environment for residents to grow in confidence in both technical and non-technical skills. Given the high rate at which patients provide resident feedback, future work may investigate how to best incorporate patient derived evaluations into resident assessment.