User login
Sleep problems may point to health disparity for black women
BALTIMORE – Analysis of data from a national multicenter study of women’s health has found that according to a presentation at the annual meeting of the Associated Sleep Societies.
“Race is emerging as a significant moderator in the relationship between sleep and health outcomes,” said Marissa Bowman, a doctoral student at the University of Pittsburgh. The study was based on 10- to 15-year follow-up data from the SWAN (Study of Women’s Health Across the Nation) sleep research. The researchers evaluated sleep in 265 midlife women, 45% of whom were black.
At baseline, the study assessed sleep health using both actigraphy and a daily diary, along with body mass index (BMI), waist circumference (WC), and waist-to-hip ratio (WHpR), then collected data on the anthropometric factors 10-15 years later.
Cross-sectional and prospective analyses found that sleep health was correlated with lower BMI but was not significantly associated with WC or WHpR. A prospective analysis found no overall significant correlation between sleep health and any of the three factors. But in a separate the analysis of the study group by race, all three anthropometric factors had a stronger link to sleep health in black women than in those of European descent, respectively, with beta coefficients of –0.14 vs. 0.1 for BMI, –0.17 and 0.1 for WC and –0.17 and 0.07 for WHpR.
“We need to explain this association and conceptualize how sleep health might be more strongly related with weight in African Americans,” Ms. Bowman said. “One possibility might be that sleep health reflects a health disparity. We can see how race is related to other health disparities, and this might be one of them.”
During questions, Ms. Bowman acknowledged that SWAN did not have data on what kind of access to health care the black women in the study had. “That might be a possible reason they’re not getting their sleep treated; they’re not getting other health factors treated,” she said.
Ms. Bowman and her coauthors reported no financial relationships. The study was funded by the National Institute on Aging, National Institutes of Health, and the National Institutes of Health Office of Research on Women’s Health.
BALTIMORE – Analysis of data from a national multicenter study of women’s health has found that according to a presentation at the annual meeting of the Associated Sleep Societies.
“Race is emerging as a significant moderator in the relationship between sleep and health outcomes,” said Marissa Bowman, a doctoral student at the University of Pittsburgh. The study was based on 10- to 15-year follow-up data from the SWAN (Study of Women’s Health Across the Nation) sleep research. The researchers evaluated sleep in 265 midlife women, 45% of whom were black.
At baseline, the study assessed sleep health using both actigraphy and a daily diary, along with body mass index (BMI), waist circumference (WC), and waist-to-hip ratio (WHpR), then collected data on the anthropometric factors 10-15 years later.
Cross-sectional and prospective analyses found that sleep health was correlated with lower BMI but was not significantly associated with WC or WHpR. A prospective analysis found no overall significant correlation between sleep health and any of the three factors. But in a separate the analysis of the study group by race, all three anthropometric factors had a stronger link to sleep health in black women than in those of European descent, respectively, with beta coefficients of –0.14 vs. 0.1 for BMI, –0.17 and 0.1 for WC and –0.17 and 0.07 for WHpR.
“We need to explain this association and conceptualize how sleep health might be more strongly related with weight in African Americans,” Ms. Bowman said. “One possibility might be that sleep health reflects a health disparity. We can see how race is related to other health disparities, and this might be one of them.”
During questions, Ms. Bowman acknowledged that SWAN did not have data on what kind of access to health care the black women in the study had. “That might be a possible reason they’re not getting their sleep treated; they’re not getting other health factors treated,” she said.
Ms. Bowman and her coauthors reported no financial relationships. The study was funded by the National Institute on Aging, National Institutes of Health, and the National Institutes of Health Office of Research on Women’s Health.
BALTIMORE – Analysis of data from a national multicenter study of women’s health has found that according to a presentation at the annual meeting of the Associated Sleep Societies.
“Race is emerging as a significant moderator in the relationship between sleep and health outcomes,” said Marissa Bowman, a doctoral student at the University of Pittsburgh. The study was based on 10- to 15-year follow-up data from the SWAN (Study of Women’s Health Across the Nation) sleep research. The researchers evaluated sleep in 265 midlife women, 45% of whom were black.
At baseline, the study assessed sleep health using both actigraphy and a daily diary, along with body mass index (BMI), waist circumference (WC), and waist-to-hip ratio (WHpR), then collected data on the anthropometric factors 10-15 years later.
Cross-sectional and prospective analyses found that sleep health was correlated with lower BMI but was not significantly associated with WC or WHpR. A prospective analysis found no overall significant correlation between sleep health and any of the three factors. But in a separate the analysis of the study group by race, all three anthropometric factors had a stronger link to sleep health in black women than in those of European descent, respectively, with beta coefficients of –0.14 vs. 0.1 for BMI, –0.17 and 0.1 for WC and –0.17 and 0.07 for WHpR.
“We need to explain this association and conceptualize how sleep health might be more strongly related with weight in African Americans,” Ms. Bowman said. “One possibility might be that sleep health reflects a health disparity. We can see how race is related to other health disparities, and this might be one of them.”
During questions, Ms. Bowman acknowledged that SWAN did not have data on what kind of access to health care the black women in the study had. “That might be a possible reason they’re not getting their sleep treated; they’re not getting other health factors treated,” she said.
Ms. Bowman and her coauthors reported no financial relationships. The study was funded by the National Institute on Aging, National Institutes of Health, and the National Institutes of Health Office of Research on Women’s Health.
REPORTING FROM SLEEP 2018
Key clinical point: Black women are at greater risk for poor sleep help than white women.
Major finding: Beta coefficient for BMI and sleep health was –0.14 for black women and 0.1 for white women.
Study details: The SWAN sleep study, a multicenter, longitudinal, epidemiologic study of 265 midlife women.
Disclosures: Ms. Bowman and her coauthors reported no financial relationships. The study was funded by the National Institute on Aging, National Institutes of Health, and the National Institutes of Health Office of Research on Women’s Health.
Impact of marijuana on sleep not well understood
BALTIMORE – Although the national trend of legalization of marijuana for medical and recreational uses has accelerated, physicians should be cautious about prescribing , a sleep specialist told attendees at the annual meeting of the Associated Professional Sleep Societies.
“Increased legalization of medical marijuana may cause reduction in perception of the risk of potential harm” said Ashima Sahni, MD, of Northwestern University, Chicago.
“Overall the consensus is that the short-term use of medical marijuana causes an increase in slow-wave sleep (SWS), a decrease in sleep onset latency, a decrease in wake after sleep onset (WASO) and a decrease in REM sleep,” Dr. Sahni said. But chronic use decreases SWS and results in inconsistencies in REM sleep patterns and sleep fragmentation. These changes lead to a self-perpetuating negative cycle that causes chronic users to progressively increase their intake, furthering sleep disruption, she noted.
Marijuana withdrawal also can cause significant disturbances in sleep patterns, including reduced total sleep time and SWS, increased WASO, increased REM sleep associated with strange dreams, and increased limb movements during sleep, Dr. Sahni said. “The effects can be seen as early as 24 hours after discontinuation and can last as long as 6 weeks,” she said. In addition, poor sleep quality prior to a withdrawal attempt has been linked to relapse (Am J Psychiatry. 2004;161:1967-77).
The use of medical marijuana in the management of sleep disorders is fraught with controversy, Dr. Sahni said. She reviewed studies investigating the use of dronabinol for obstructive sleep apnea (OSA). “This is not medical marijuana,” Dr. Sahni said. “It’s a synthetic tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) cannabinoid, which acts on the nonselective CB1 and CB2 agonists,” she said. THC is the euphoria-inducing compound in marijuana. While the mechanism of action of dronabinol is similar to marijuana, the pharmacokinetics may differ. Dronabinol has been approved by the Food and Drug Administration for cancer-related nausea and appetite stimulation in AIDS patients. She referred to a proof-of-concept study of 17 patients with OSA in which dronabinol reduced the apnea-hypopnea index (AHI) with no degradation of sleep architecture or serious adverse events (Front Psychiatry. 2013 Jan 22;4:1-5). Dr. Sahni also noted a randomized, placebo-controlled trial of 73 patients that reported an average reduction in AHI of 12.9 (Sleep. 2018 Jan 1;41[1]; doi: 10.1093/sleep/zsx184). But she pointed out that the American Academy of Sleep Medicine does not recommend medical cannabis or its synthetic extracts for treatment of OSA (J Clin Sleep Med. 2018 Apr 15;14:679-81).
Insomnia, on the other hand, represents the most common use of medical marijuana for sleep. “Studies have shown mixed results because of differences in the ratios of THC to CBD [corticobasal degeneration] in the forms of marijuana examined,” she said. “In the short term, subjective sleepiness is reported to be better, but then the self-perpetuating negative cycle initiates with chronic long-term use.”
In treatment of nightmares and posttraumatic stress syndrome, Dr. Sahni cited studies that found “good effects” of medical marijuana use (CNS Neurosci Ther. 2009;15:84-8; J Clin Psychopharmacol. 2014 Oct;34:559-64). For REM behavior disorder, medical marijuana was found to be beneficial in four patients with Parkinson disease (J Clin Pharm Ther. 2014 Oct;39:564-6). In poorly treated restless leg syndrome, medical marijuana was reported to be beneficial (Sleep Med. 2017 Aug;36:182-3).
“It should be noted that these were very small studies and therefore more research is needed before we change our medical practices toward various sleep disorders,” Dr. Sahni said.
Dr. Sahni and her coauthors reported having no financial relationships to disclose.
BALTIMORE – Although the national trend of legalization of marijuana for medical and recreational uses has accelerated, physicians should be cautious about prescribing , a sleep specialist told attendees at the annual meeting of the Associated Professional Sleep Societies.
“Increased legalization of medical marijuana may cause reduction in perception of the risk of potential harm” said Ashima Sahni, MD, of Northwestern University, Chicago.
“Overall the consensus is that the short-term use of medical marijuana causes an increase in slow-wave sleep (SWS), a decrease in sleep onset latency, a decrease in wake after sleep onset (WASO) and a decrease in REM sleep,” Dr. Sahni said. But chronic use decreases SWS and results in inconsistencies in REM sleep patterns and sleep fragmentation. These changes lead to a self-perpetuating negative cycle that causes chronic users to progressively increase their intake, furthering sleep disruption, she noted.
Marijuana withdrawal also can cause significant disturbances in sleep patterns, including reduced total sleep time and SWS, increased WASO, increased REM sleep associated with strange dreams, and increased limb movements during sleep, Dr. Sahni said. “The effects can be seen as early as 24 hours after discontinuation and can last as long as 6 weeks,” she said. In addition, poor sleep quality prior to a withdrawal attempt has been linked to relapse (Am J Psychiatry. 2004;161:1967-77).
The use of medical marijuana in the management of sleep disorders is fraught with controversy, Dr. Sahni said. She reviewed studies investigating the use of dronabinol for obstructive sleep apnea (OSA). “This is not medical marijuana,” Dr. Sahni said. “It’s a synthetic tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) cannabinoid, which acts on the nonselective CB1 and CB2 agonists,” she said. THC is the euphoria-inducing compound in marijuana. While the mechanism of action of dronabinol is similar to marijuana, the pharmacokinetics may differ. Dronabinol has been approved by the Food and Drug Administration for cancer-related nausea and appetite stimulation in AIDS patients. She referred to a proof-of-concept study of 17 patients with OSA in which dronabinol reduced the apnea-hypopnea index (AHI) with no degradation of sleep architecture or serious adverse events (Front Psychiatry. 2013 Jan 22;4:1-5). Dr. Sahni also noted a randomized, placebo-controlled trial of 73 patients that reported an average reduction in AHI of 12.9 (Sleep. 2018 Jan 1;41[1]; doi: 10.1093/sleep/zsx184). But she pointed out that the American Academy of Sleep Medicine does not recommend medical cannabis or its synthetic extracts for treatment of OSA (J Clin Sleep Med. 2018 Apr 15;14:679-81).
Insomnia, on the other hand, represents the most common use of medical marijuana for sleep. “Studies have shown mixed results because of differences in the ratios of THC to CBD [corticobasal degeneration] in the forms of marijuana examined,” she said. “In the short term, subjective sleepiness is reported to be better, but then the self-perpetuating negative cycle initiates with chronic long-term use.”
In treatment of nightmares and posttraumatic stress syndrome, Dr. Sahni cited studies that found “good effects” of medical marijuana use (CNS Neurosci Ther. 2009;15:84-8; J Clin Psychopharmacol. 2014 Oct;34:559-64). For REM behavior disorder, medical marijuana was found to be beneficial in four patients with Parkinson disease (J Clin Pharm Ther. 2014 Oct;39:564-6). In poorly treated restless leg syndrome, medical marijuana was reported to be beneficial (Sleep Med. 2017 Aug;36:182-3).
“It should be noted that these were very small studies and therefore more research is needed before we change our medical practices toward various sleep disorders,” Dr. Sahni said.
Dr. Sahni and her coauthors reported having no financial relationships to disclose.
BALTIMORE – Although the national trend of legalization of marijuana for medical and recreational uses has accelerated, physicians should be cautious about prescribing , a sleep specialist told attendees at the annual meeting of the Associated Professional Sleep Societies.
“Increased legalization of medical marijuana may cause reduction in perception of the risk of potential harm” said Ashima Sahni, MD, of Northwestern University, Chicago.
“Overall the consensus is that the short-term use of medical marijuana causes an increase in slow-wave sleep (SWS), a decrease in sleep onset latency, a decrease in wake after sleep onset (WASO) and a decrease in REM sleep,” Dr. Sahni said. But chronic use decreases SWS and results in inconsistencies in REM sleep patterns and sleep fragmentation. These changes lead to a self-perpetuating negative cycle that causes chronic users to progressively increase their intake, furthering sleep disruption, she noted.
Marijuana withdrawal also can cause significant disturbances in sleep patterns, including reduced total sleep time and SWS, increased WASO, increased REM sleep associated with strange dreams, and increased limb movements during sleep, Dr. Sahni said. “The effects can be seen as early as 24 hours after discontinuation and can last as long as 6 weeks,” she said. In addition, poor sleep quality prior to a withdrawal attempt has been linked to relapse (Am J Psychiatry. 2004;161:1967-77).
The use of medical marijuana in the management of sleep disorders is fraught with controversy, Dr. Sahni said. She reviewed studies investigating the use of dronabinol for obstructive sleep apnea (OSA). “This is not medical marijuana,” Dr. Sahni said. “It’s a synthetic tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) cannabinoid, which acts on the nonselective CB1 and CB2 agonists,” she said. THC is the euphoria-inducing compound in marijuana. While the mechanism of action of dronabinol is similar to marijuana, the pharmacokinetics may differ. Dronabinol has been approved by the Food and Drug Administration for cancer-related nausea and appetite stimulation in AIDS patients. She referred to a proof-of-concept study of 17 patients with OSA in which dronabinol reduced the apnea-hypopnea index (AHI) with no degradation of sleep architecture or serious adverse events (Front Psychiatry. 2013 Jan 22;4:1-5). Dr. Sahni also noted a randomized, placebo-controlled trial of 73 patients that reported an average reduction in AHI of 12.9 (Sleep. 2018 Jan 1;41[1]; doi: 10.1093/sleep/zsx184). But she pointed out that the American Academy of Sleep Medicine does not recommend medical cannabis or its synthetic extracts for treatment of OSA (J Clin Sleep Med. 2018 Apr 15;14:679-81).
Insomnia, on the other hand, represents the most common use of medical marijuana for sleep. “Studies have shown mixed results because of differences in the ratios of THC to CBD [corticobasal degeneration] in the forms of marijuana examined,” she said. “In the short term, subjective sleepiness is reported to be better, but then the self-perpetuating negative cycle initiates with chronic long-term use.”
In treatment of nightmares and posttraumatic stress syndrome, Dr. Sahni cited studies that found “good effects” of medical marijuana use (CNS Neurosci Ther. 2009;15:84-8; J Clin Psychopharmacol. 2014 Oct;34:559-64). For REM behavior disorder, medical marijuana was found to be beneficial in four patients with Parkinson disease (J Clin Pharm Ther. 2014 Oct;39:564-6). In poorly treated restless leg syndrome, medical marijuana was reported to be beneficial (Sleep Med. 2017 Aug;36:182-3).
“It should be noted that these were very small studies and therefore more research is needed before we change our medical practices toward various sleep disorders,” Dr. Sahni said.
Dr. Sahni and her coauthors reported having no financial relationships to disclose.
EXPERT ANALYSIS FROM SLEEP 2018
Upping the game of surgical researchers
Many are submitted, but few are chosen.
Concerned about the quality of submitted research papers based on large surgical databases that are not accepted for publication, the editorial board of JAMA Surgery has taken the initiative by giving some pointers to would-be authors. The journal editors have published a 10-point checklist of dos and don’ts to address commonly seen problems with submitted manuscripts. In addition, JAMA Surgery collaborated with the Surgical Outcomes Club to commission a series of practical guides on the most widely used data sets in an effort to improve the quality of surgical database research. The Surgical Outcomes Club is a consortium of surgeons and scientists who work to advance health services and outcomes research in surgery that was launched in 2005 at the American College of Surgeons Clinical Congress.
The authors noted that, although JAMA Surgery receives hundreds of submissions of retrospective studies of large surgical databases each year, most of these studies have flaws in the data analysis or use a hypothesis that the data sets cannot address. Hence, the editors do not send most of them out for peer review. “Of those that are sent out for peer review, many are recommended to be rejected by expert peer reviewers as they find major methodological flaws in the use of these otherwise powerful data sets,” the team wrote.
“Research using data sets can be very powerful as the research can address questions and hypotheses using large populations of people. However, the research can have many weaknesses. First, the research is only as good as the data collection for each data set. Second, the investigator needs to be familiar with the types of research questions and hypotheses that can be addressed with each data set. Third, the statistical methodology used to analyze the data is also imperative,” said Dr. Kibbe in an interview.
The checklist begins with a recommendation that the researchers develop a clear, concise hypothesis using established criteria – either FINER (for feasible, interesting, novel, ethical, relevant) or PICO (patient, population, or problem; intervention, prognostic factor, or exposure; comparison or intervention; outcome); the checklist then goes on to include compliance with institutional review board and data use agreements and to emphasize the importance of a clear take-home message that addresses policy or clinical implications.
The series comprises 11 two-page articles that aim to serve as practical guides for using each of the most widely used surgical data sets, starting with the National Inpatient Sample and ending with the Society of Thoracic Surgeons data set. Each article includes a bulleted list of the data set’s attributes, an explanation of its limitations, a history of the data set, an explanation of how the data is collected and what is unique about the set’s features, and statistical considerations researchers should take into account when analyzing the data.
The series concludes with tips from the statistical editors of JAMA Surgery – Amy H. Kaji, MD, PhD, of Harbor–University of California Los Angeles Medical Center in Torrance; Alfred W. Rademaker, PhD, of Northwestern University, Chicago; and Terry Hyslop, PhD, of Duke University, Durham, N.C. – for performing statistical analysis of large data sets: “With bigger data, random signals may denote statistical significance, and precision may be incorrectly inferred because of narrow confidence intervals,” the statistical editors noted. “While many principles apply to all studies, the importance of these methodological issues is amplified in large, complex data sets.”
However, they noted that large data sets are prone to bias and measurement errors. “It is important to respect and acknowledge the limitations of the data,” the statistical team wrote. They also reprise the introductory editorial’s call for a clear hypothesis and take-home message. “The challenge with Big Data is that it requires a carefully thought-out research question and a transparent analytic strategy,” the statistical editors said.
And there are pitfalls. Dr. Bilimoria noted, “We shouldn’t let the database define our research. We should instead be asking interesting questions and then seeking out a database that fits best to answer the question.” He said one particular problem that comes up often for reviewers is trying to discern how researchers arrived at the population of interest in a study. “A lot of inclusion and exclusions criteria are applied, and unless [the reviewer] can see the decisions that were made in the process, some fairly important biases can be introduced unintentionally. We as reviewers would like to be able to follow that exclusion pathway.”
He said, “A problem we frequently see is that these databases change the variable definitions over time – in fact, change the variables over time. So if researchers aren’t checking to see if that variable was reported the same every year of the study and in the same way, they will get spurious results. Similarly, the number of hospitals reporting is important as well since hospitals come in and out of these data sets.”
In their introductory editorial, the JAMA Surgery team noted that the checklist, practical guides, and statistical tips are a three-pronged approach that authors should consult before submitting their manuscripts. “We hope that by following these simple guides, authors can benefit from the collective wisdom of so many colleagues who have successfully completed similar analyses in the past,” they wrote.
Dr. Bilimoria sees great strengths in database research, such as giving researchers a population-level view of how care is being delivered, insights into the outcomes of care, indications of the effects of policy decisions, and data on rare diseases and operations.
Big Data of all kinds will be increasingly available for researchers. Dr. Kibbe commented that, “In the future, having a comprehensive (not sampling) country- or worldwide electronic medical record that will allow for robust inclusion of all medical data at the individual as well as cohort level will greatly contribute to the era of personalized medicine. In my opinion, this would be a real-time inclusive medical database that would allow for individual as well as population-based prospective studies.”
Dr. Haider receives support from the Henry M. Jackson Foundation of the Department of Defense, the Orthopaedic Research and Education Foundation, and the National Institutes of Health, and nonfinancial research support the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Office of Minority Health. Dr. Bilimoria was the president of the Surgical Outcomes Club from 2016 to 2017.
Many are submitted, but few are chosen.
Concerned about the quality of submitted research papers based on large surgical databases that are not accepted for publication, the editorial board of JAMA Surgery has taken the initiative by giving some pointers to would-be authors. The journal editors have published a 10-point checklist of dos and don’ts to address commonly seen problems with submitted manuscripts. In addition, JAMA Surgery collaborated with the Surgical Outcomes Club to commission a series of practical guides on the most widely used data sets in an effort to improve the quality of surgical database research. The Surgical Outcomes Club is a consortium of surgeons and scientists who work to advance health services and outcomes research in surgery that was launched in 2005 at the American College of Surgeons Clinical Congress.
The authors noted that, although JAMA Surgery receives hundreds of submissions of retrospective studies of large surgical databases each year, most of these studies have flaws in the data analysis or use a hypothesis that the data sets cannot address. Hence, the editors do not send most of them out for peer review. “Of those that are sent out for peer review, many are recommended to be rejected by expert peer reviewers as they find major methodological flaws in the use of these otherwise powerful data sets,” the team wrote.
“Research using data sets can be very powerful as the research can address questions and hypotheses using large populations of people. However, the research can have many weaknesses. First, the research is only as good as the data collection for each data set. Second, the investigator needs to be familiar with the types of research questions and hypotheses that can be addressed with each data set. Third, the statistical methodology used to analyze the data is also imperative,” said Dr. Kibbe in an interview.
The checklist begins with a recommendation that the researchers develop a clear, concise hypothesis using established criteria – either FINER (for feasible, interesting, novel, ethical, relevant) or PICO (patient, population, or problem; intervention, prognostic factor, or exposure; comparison or intervention; outcome); the checklist then goes on to include compliance with institutional review board and data use agreements and to emphasize the importance of a clear take-home message that addresses policy or clinical implications.
The series comprises 11 two-page articles that aim to serve as practical guides for using each of the most widely used surgical data sets, starting with the National Inpatient Sample and ending with the Society of Thoracic Surgeons data set. Each article includes a bulleted list of the data set’s attributes, an explanation of its limitations, a history of the data set, an explanation of how the data is collected and what is unique about the set’s features, and statistical considerations researchers should take into account when analyzing the data.
The series concludes with tips from the statistical editors of JAMA Surgery – Amy H. Kaji, MD, PhD, of Harbor–University of California Los Angeles Medical Center in Torrance; Alfred W. Rademaker, PhD, of Northwestern University, Chicago; and Terry Hyslop, PhD, of Duke University, Durham, N.C. – for performing statistical analysis of large data sets: “With bigger data, random signals may denote statistical significance, and precision may be incorrectly inferred because of narrow confidence intervals,” the statistical editors noted. “While many principles apply to all studies, the importance of these methodological issues is amplified in large, complex data sets.”
However, they noted that large data sets are prone to bias and measurement errors. “It is important to respect and acknowledge the limitations of the data,” the statistical team wrote. They also reprise the introductory editorial’s call for a clear hypothesis and take-home message. “The challenge with Big Data is that it requires a carefully thought-out research question and a transparent analytic strategy,” the statistical editors said.
And there are pitfalls. Dr. Bilimoria noted, “We shouldn’t let the database define our research. We should instead be asking interesting questions and then seeking out a database that fits best to answer the question.” He said one particular problem that comes up often for reviewers is trying to discern how researchers arrived at the population of interest in a study. “A lot of inclusion and exclusions criteria are applied, and unless [the reviewer] can see the decisions that were made in the process, some fairly important biases can be introduced unintentionally. We as reviewers would like to be able to follow that exclusion pathway.”
He said, “A problem we frequently see is that these databases change the variable definitions over time – in fact, change the variables over time. So if researchers aren’t checking to see if that variable was reported the same every year of the study and in the same way, they will get spurious results. Similarly, the number of hospitals reporting is important as well since hospitals come in and out of these data sets.”
In their introductory editorial, the JAMA Surgery team noted that the checklist, practical guides, and statistical tips are a three-pronged approach that authors should consult before submitting their manuscripts. “We hope that by following these simple guides, authors can benefit from the collective wisdom of so many colleagues who have successfully completed similar analyses in the past,” they wrote.
Dr. Bilimoria sees great strengths in database research, such as giving researchers a population-level view of how care is being delivered, insights into the outcomes of care, indications of the effects of policy decisions, and data on rare diseases and operations.
Big Data of all kinds will be increasingly available for researchers. Dr. Kibbe commented that, “In the future, having a comprehensive (not sampling) country- or worldwide electronic medical record that will allow for robust inclusion of all medical data at the individual as well as cohort level will greatly contribute to the era of personalized medicine. In my opinion, this would be a real-time inclusive medical database that would allow for individual as well as population-based prospective studies.”
Dr. Haider receives support from the Henry M. Jackson Foundation of the Department of Defense, the Orthopaedic Research and Education Foundation, and the National Institutes of Health, and nonfinancial research support the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Office of Minority Health. Dr. Bilimoria was the president of the Surgical Outcomes Club from 2016 to 2017.
Many are submitted, but few are chosen.
Concerned about the quality of submitted research papers based on large surgical databases that are not accepted for publication, the editorial board of JAMA Surgery has taken the initiative by giving some pointers to would-be authors. The journal editors have published a 10-point checklist of dos and don’ts to address commonly seen problems with submitted manuscripts. In addition, JAMA Surgery collaborated with the Surgical Outcomes Club to commission a series of practical guides on the most widely used data sets in an effort to improve the quality of surgical database research. The Surgical Outcomes Club is a consortium of surgeons and scientists who work to advance health services and outcomes research in surgery that was launched in 2005 at the American College of Surgeons Clinical Congress.
The authors noted that, although JAMA Surgery receives hundreds of submissions of retrospective studies of large surgical databases each year, most of these studies have flaws in the data analysis or use a hypothesis that the data sets cannot address. Hence, the editors do not send most of them out for peer review. “Of those that are sent out for peer review, many are recommended to be rejected by expert peer reviewers as they find major methodological flaws in the use of these otherwise powerful data sets,” the team wrote.
“Research using data sets can be very powerful as the research can address questions and hypotheses using large populations of people. However, the research can have many weaknesses. First, the research is only as good as the data collection for each data set. Second, the investigator needs to be familiar with the types of research questions and hypotheses that can be addressed with each data set. Third, the statistical methodology used to analyze the data is also imperative,” said Dr. Kibbe in an interview.
The checklist begins with a recommendation that the researchers develop a clear, concise hypothesis using established criteria – either FINER (for feasible, interesting, novel, ethical, relevant) or PICO (patient, population, or problem; intervention, prognostic factor, or exposure; comparison or intervention; outcome); the checklist then goes on to include compliance with institutional review board and data use agreements and to emphasize the importance of a clear take-home message that addresses policy or clinical implications.
The series comprises 11 two-page articles that aim to serve as practical guides for using each of the most widely used surgical data sets, starting with the National Inpatient Sample and ending with the Society of Thoracic Surgeons data set. Each article includes a bulleted list of the data set’s attributes, an explanation of its limitations, a history of the data set, an explanation of how the data is collected and what is unique about the set’s features, and statistical considerations researchers should take into account when analyzing the data.
The series concludes with tips from the statistical editors of JAMA Surgery – Amy H. Kaji, MD, PhD, of Harbor–University of California Los Angeles Medical Center in Torrance; Alfred W. Rademaker, PhD, of Northwestern University, Chicago; and Terry Hyslop, PhD, of Duke University, Durham, N.C. – for performing statistical analysis of large data sets: “With bigger data, random signals may denote statistical significance, and precision may be incorrectly inferred because of narrow confidence intervals,” the statistical editors noted. “While many principles apply to all studies, the importance of these methodological issues is amplified in large, complex data sets.”
However, they noted that large data sets are prone to bias and measurement errors. “It is important to respect and acknowledge the limitations of the data,” the statistical team wrote. They also reprise the introductory editorial’s call for a clear hypothesis and take-home message. “The challenge with Big Data is that it requires a carefully thought-out research question and a transparent analytic strategy,” the statistical editors said.
And there are pitfalls. Dr. Bilimoria noted, “We shouldn’t let the database define our research. We should instead be asking interesting questions and then seeking out a database that fits best to answer the question.” He said one particular problem that comes up often for reviewers is trying to discern how researchers arrived at the population of interest in a study. “A lot of inclusion and exclusions criteria are applied, and unless [the reviewer] can see the decisions that were made in the process, some fairly important biases can be introduced unintentionally. We as reviewers would like to be able to follow that exclusion pathway.”
He said, “A problem we frequently see is that these databases change the variable definitions over time – in fact, change the variables over time. So if researchers aren’t checking to see if that variable was reported the same every year of the study and in the same way, they will get spurious results. Similarly, the number of hospitals reporting is important as well since hospitals come in and out of these data sets.”
In their introductory editorial, the JAMA Surgery team noted that the checklist, practical guides, and statistical tips are a three-pronged approach that authors should consult before submitting their manuscripts. “We hope that by following these simple guides, authors can benefit from the collective wisdom of so many colleagues who have successfully completed similar analyses in the past,” they wrote.
Dr. Bilimoria sees great strengths in database research, such as giving researchers a population-level view of how care is being delivered, insights into the outcomes of care, indications of the effects of policy decisions, and data on rare diseases and operations.
Big Data of all kinds will be increasingly available for researchers. Dr. Kibbe commented that, “In the future, having a comprehensive (not sampling) country- or worldwide electronic medical record that will allow for robust inclusion of all medical data at the individual as well as cohort level will greatly contribute to the era of personalized medicine. In my opinion, this would be a real-time inclusive medical database that would allow for individual as well as population-based prospective studies.”
Dr. Haider receives support from the Henry M. Jackson Foundation of the Department of Defense, the Orthopaedic Research and Education Foundation, and the National Institutes of Health, and nonfinancial research support the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Office of Minority Health. Dr. Bilimoria was the president of the Surgical Outcomes Club from 2016 to 2017.
Enhanced recovery led to fewer complications for major oncologic procedures
CHICAGO – Use of an enhanced recovery protocol for oncology patients has been shown to improve outcomes in colorectal surgery but has been largely unproven in other types of major oncology operations. That prompted researchers at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston to investigate They found that the enhanced recovery protocol led to a reduction in complication rates and a decrease in hospital stay with no increase in readmissions, according to an analysis of more than 3,000 oncologic operations presented at the Society of Surgical Oncology Annual Cancer Symposium here.
“Patients treated with enhanced recovery did better,” Rebecca Marcus, MD, said in reporting the results. “There were decreased rates of perioperative transfusions, decreased rates of surgical site infections, decreased rates of complications, including severe complications such as wound dehiscence, pneumonia, renal failure, and unintended returns to the operating room.” She noted that the shorter hospital stays – 4 days for patients on the enhanced recovery protocol versus 5 days for those on the traditional postoperative protocol – did not result in increased readmissions.
The study reviewed 3,256 operations performed during 2011-2016 in the MD Anderson institutional American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database. The operations were colorectal (20.4%), gynecologic (19.5%), hepatobiliary (8.9%), thoracic (41.9%) and urologic (9.3%). Most employed the traditional postoperative protocol (53.4%). Colorectal and thoracic/vascular surgery were early adopters of the enhanced recovery protocol at MD Anderson.
Dr. Marcus noted that the overall complication rates were 21.9% for those treated with enhanced recovery–protocol versus 33.9% for those treated with traditional postoperative protocol (P less than .0001). The group treated with enhanced recovery protocol also had lower rates of severe complications: 8.7% vs. 11.7% (P =.0048). The study also noted a trend toward reduced National Surgical Quality Improvement Program 30-day mortality with the enhanced recover protocol (0.4% vs. 0.86%; P = .097). Readmission rates were similar between the two groups: 8.3% for enhanced recovery protocol versus 8.9% for traditional postoperative protocol.
The researchers performed a subanalysis of high-magnitude cases that had a relative value unit of 30 or more and involved operations of greater complexity, which constituted 38% of the study population. “In this group, we still saw the benefit of having treatment with an enhanced recovery protocol with decreased rates of preoperative transfusions, complications, and shorter length of stay without any recent readmission,” Dr. Marcus said. Complication rates in the high-magnitude group were 19% for the enhanced recovery protocol versus 26% for the traditional postoperative protocol in colorectal cases, 21% vs. 40% in gynecology, and 19% vs. 28% in thoracic/vascular.
“The beneficial impact of enhanced recovery appears to be maintained across all specialties and to be independent of case magnitude,” Dr. Marcus said.
She said future research of enhanced recovery in surgical oncology should focus on more long-term outcomes, “such as oncologic benefits of these protocols, especially given the known detrimental effect of the delayed return to adjuvant therapy for this patient population.”
Dr. Marcus and her coauthors reported having no financial disclosures.
SOURCE: Marcus RK et al. SSO 2018, Abstract 21.
CHICAGO – Use of an enhanced recovery protocol for oncology patients has been shown to improve outcomes in colorectal surgery but has been largely unproven in other types of major oncology operations. That prompted researchers at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston to investigate They found that the enhanced recovery protocol led to a reduction in complication rates and a decrease in hospital stay with no increase in readmissions, according to an analysis of more than 3,000 oncologic operations presented at the Society of Surgical Oncology Annual Cancer Symposium here.
“Patients treated with enhanced recovery did better,” Rebecca Marcus, MD, said in reporting the results. “There were decreased rates of perioperative transfusions, decreased rates of surgical site infections, decreased rates of complications, including severe complications such as wound dehiscence, pneumonia, renal failure, and unintended returns to the operating room.” She noted that the shorter hospital stays – 4 days for patients on the enhanced recovery protocol versus 5 days for those on the traditional postoperative protocol – did not result in increased readmissions.
The study reviewed 3,256 operations performed during 2011-2016 in the MD Anderson institutional American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database. The operations were colorectal (20.4%), gynecologic (19.5%), hepatobiliary (8.9%), thoracic (41.9%) and urologic (9.3%). Most employed the traditional postoperative protocol (53.4%). Colorectal and thoracic/vascular surgery were early adopters of the enhanced recovery protocol at MD Anderson.
Dr. Marcus noted that the overall complication rates were 21.9% for those treated with enhanced recovery–protocol versus 33.9% for those treated with traditional postoperative protocol (P less than .0001). The group treated with enhanced recovery protocol also had lower rates of severe complications: 8.7% vs. 11.7% (P =.0048). The study also noted a trend toward reduced National Surgical Quality Improvement Program 30-day mortality with the enhanced recover protocol (0.4% vs. 0.86%; P = .097). Readmission rates were similar between the two groups: 8.3% for enhanced recovery protocol versus 8.9% for traditional postoperative protocol.
The researchers performed a subanalysis of high-magnitude cases that had a relative value unit of 30 or more and involved operations of greater complexity, which constituted 38% of the study population. “In this group, we still saw the benefit of having treatment with an enhanced recovery protocol with decreased rates of preoperative transfusions, complications, and shorter length of stay without any recent readmission,” Dr. Marcus said. Complication rates in the high-magnitude group were 19% for the enhanced recovery protocol versus 26% for the traditional postoperative protocol in colorectal cases, 21% vs. 40% in gynecology, and 19% vs. 28% in thoracic/vascular.
“The beneficial impact of enhanced recovery appears to be maintained across all specialties and to be independent of case magnitude,” Dr. Marcus said.
She said future research of enhanced recovery in surgical oncology should focus on more long-term outcomes, “such as oncologic benefits of these protocols, especially given the known detrimental effect of the delayed return to adjuvant therapy for this patient population.”
Dr. Marcus and her coauthors reported having no financial disclosures.
SOURCE: Marcus RK et al. SSO 2018, Abstract 21.
CHICAGO – Use of an enhanced recovery protocol for oncology patients has been shown to improve outcomes in colorectal surgery but has been largely unproven in other types of major oncology operations. That prompted researchers at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston to investigate They found that the enhanced recovery protocol led to a reduction in complication rates and a decrease in hospital stay with no increase in readmissions, according to an analysis of more than 3,000 oncologic operations presented at the Society of Surgical Oncology Annual Cancer Symposium here.
“Patients treated with enhanced recovery did better,” Rebecca Marcus, MD, said in reporting the results. “There were decreased rates of perioperative transfusions, decreased rates of surgical site infections, decreased rates of complications, including severe complications such as wound dehiscence, pneumonia, renal failure, and unintended returns to the operating room.” She noted that the shorter hospital stays – 4 days for patients on the enhanced recovery protocol versus 5 days for those on the traditional postoperative protocol – did not result in increased readmissions.
The study reviewed 3,256 operations performed during 2011-2016 in the MD Anderson institutional American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database. The operations were colorectal (20.4%), gynecologic (19.5%), hepatobiliary (8.9%), thoracic (41.9%) and urologic (9.3%). Most employed the traditional postoperative protocol (53.4%). Colorectal and thoracic/vascular surgery were early adopters of the enhanced recovery protocol at MD Anderson.
Dr. Marcus noted that the overall complication rates were 21.9% for those treated with enhanced recovery–protocol versus 33.9% for those treated with traditional postoperative protocol (P less than .0001). The group treated with enhanced recovery protocol also had lower rates of severe complications: 8.7% vs. 11.7% (P =.0048). The study also noted a trend toward reduced National Surgical Quality Improvement Program 30-day mortality with the enhanced recover protocol (0.4% vs. 0.86%; P = .097). Readmission rates were similar between the two groups: 8.3% for enhanced recovery protocol versus 8.9% for traditional postoperative protocol.
The researchers performed a subanalysis of high-magnitude cases that had a relative value unit of 30 or more and involved operations of greater complexity, which constituted 38% of the study population. “In this group, we still saw the benefit of having treatment with an enhanced recovery protocol with decreased rates of preoperative transfusions, complications, and shorter length of stay without any recent readmission,” Dr. Marcus said. Complication rates in the high-magnitude group were 19% for the enhanced recovery protocol versus 26% for the traditional postoperative protocol in colorectal cases, 21% vs. 40% in gynecology, and 19% vs. 28% in thoracic/vascular.
“The beneficial impact of enhanced recovery appears to be maintained across all specialties and to be independent of case magnitude,” Dr. Marcus said.
She said future research of enhanced recovery in surgical oncology should focus on more long-term outcomes, “such as oncologic benefits of these protocols, especially given the known detrimental effect of the delayed return to adjuvant therapy for this patient population.”
Dr. Marcus and her coauthors reported having no financial disclosures.
SOURCE: Marcus RK et al. SSO 2018, Abstract 21.
REPORTING FROM SSO 2018
Key clinical point: Enhanced recovery protocol implementation is feasible in major oncologic surgery.
Major finding: Complication rates were 21.9% for enhanced recovery protocol versus 33.9% for traditional postoperative protocol.
Study details: Analysis of 3,256 oncology operations in an institutional ACS NSQIP database performed from 2011 to 2016.
Disclosures: Dr. Marcus and her coauthors reported having no financial disclosures.
Source: Marcus RK et al. SSO 2018, Abstract 21
Gene strong predictor of metastasis in melanoma
CHICAGO – Investigators have identified four genes that are overexpressed in primary melanoma, including one, CXCL1, that holds promise as a strong predictor of future metastatic disease, according to study results presented at the Society of Surgical Oncology Annual Cancer Symposium.
The study implicated four genes strongly expressed in primary melanoma tumors of patients who develop distant metastases – CXCL1, CXCL2, CBL, and CD276 – said Jennifer Erdrich, MD, MPH, of Cedars Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles. However, CXCL1 stood out. “CXCL1 overexpression is an independent predictor of developing metastatic disease. Patients with CXCL1 overexpression in the primary tumor in our study had decreased overall 5-year survival.” CXCL1 may be a useful predictive marker in primary melanoma and a potential target for immunotherapy, she said.
The rationale for analyzing the 79 genes implicated in cancer only rather than the entire array of 22,000 genes was to reduce the odds of a high false-discovery rate from 5% to 0.007%. “This is what strengthens our findings in a cohort of 37 patients,” Dr. Erdrich said.
The study analyzed pathological characteristics of the metastatic and nonmetastatic groups. Most characteristics were similar between the two groups, including location of the primary tumor in the trunk and extremities of 67% and 71%, respectively, and age of 60 years and older. The analysis noted two deviations: primary tumor size was thicker in the metastatic group (2.1 mm vs. 1.05 mm; P = .6), although Dr. Erdrich noted this was “not significantly different”; and a higher rate of ulceration in the metastatic group (50% vs. 13%; P = .05).
The genes CXCL1 and CXCL2 are both chemokines involved in growth and inflammation. “CXCL1 expression was 2.51 times greater in the metastatic group,” Dr. Erdrich said (P less than .001). Overexpression in the other three genes of interest was: CXCL2, 1.68 times greater (P less than .01); CD276, which is involved in T-cell immunity, 1.16 times greater (P = .04); and C-CBL, which is a photo-oncogene involved in the ubiquitin pathway, 1.15 times greater (P = .01). “The overexpression of all four of these was statistically significant,” she said.
Univariate analysis found ulceration of the primary along with overexpression of
the four genes to be significant predictors of metastasis. “However, in our multivariate model, three of the genes dropped out but CXCL1 remained robust,” she said.
Dr. Erdrich noted that CXCL1 is a cytokine located on chromosome 4, is secreted by macrophages, exerts its signal through CXCR2, and is one of five cytokines upregulated in lesions that respond to immunotherapy (Br J Dermatol. 2016;175:966-78).
CXCL1 compares favorably with S100, the existing blood-based biomarker for predicting recurrence in high-risk melanoma, as a predictor of metastases, Dr. Erdrich said, with an area under the curve of 0.80 versus 0.66; sensitivity of 67% versus 77%; specificity of 97% versus 61%; positive predictive value of 80% versus 40%; and negative predictive value of 94% versus 88% (Anticancer Res. 1999;19:2685-90; Cancer. 2003;97:1737-45).
The study also looked at overall survival in patients with low and high expression of CXCL1. “The patients with high expression had 5-year survival of only 50% compared to those of low expression, whose 5-year survival was 97%,” Dr. Erdrich said.
Dr. Erdrich and her coauthors reported having no financial relationships.
SOURCE: Erdrich J et al. SSO 2018, Abstract 82.
CHICAGO – Investigators have identified four genes that are overexpressed in primary melanoma, including one, CXCL1, that holds promise as a strong predictor of future metastatic disease, according to study results presented at the Society of Surgical Oncology Annual Cancer Symposium.
The study implicated four genes strongly expressed in primary melanoma tumors of patients who develop distant metastases – CXCL1, CXCL2, CBL, and CD276 – said Jennifer Erdrich, MD, MPH, of Cedars Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles. However, CXCL1 stood out. “CXCL1 overexpression is an independent predictor of developing metastatic disease. Patients with CXCL1 overexpression in the primary tumor in our study had decreased overall 5-year survival.” CXCL1 may be a useful predictive marker in primary melanoma and a potential target for immunotherapy, she said.
The rationale for analyzing the 79 genes implicated in cancer only rather than the entire array of 22,000 genes was to reduce the odds of a high false-discovery rate from 5% to 0.007%. “This is what strengthens our findings in a cohort of 37 patients,” Dr. Erdrich said.
The study analyzed pathological characteristics of the metastatic and nonmetastatic groups. Most characteristics were similar between the two groups, including location of the primary tumor in the trunk and extremities of 67% and 71%, respectively, and age of 60 years and older. The analysis noted two deviations: primary tumor size was thicker in the metastatic group (2.1 mm vs. 1.05 mm; P = .6), although Dr. Erdrich noted this was “not significantly different”; and a higher rate of ulceration in the metastatic group (50% vs. 13%; P = .05).
The genes CXCL1 and CXCL2 are both chemokines involved in growth and inflammation. “CXCL1 expression was 2.51 times greater in the metastatic group,” Dr. Erdrich said (P less than .001). Overexpression in the other three genes of interest was: CXCL2, 1.68 times greater (P less than .01); CD276, which is involved in T-cell immunity, 1.16 times greater (P = .04); and C-CBL, which is a photo-oncogene involved in the ubiquitin pathway, 1.15 times greater (P = .01). “The overexpression of all four of these was statistically significant,” she said.
Univariate analysis found ulceration of the primary along with overexpression of
the four genes to be significant predictors of metastasis. “However, in our multivariate model, three of the genes dropped out but CXCL1 remained robust,” she said.
Dr. Erdrich noted that CXCL1 is a cytokine located on chromosome 4, is secreted by macrophages, exerts its signal through CXCR2, and is one of five cytokines upregulated in lesions that respond to immunotherapy (Br J Dermatol. 2016;175:966-78).
CXCL1 compares favorably with S100, the existing blood-based biomarker for predicting recurrence in high-risk melanoma, as a predictor of metastases, Dr. Erdrich said, with an area under the curve of 0.80 versus 0.66; sensitivity of 67% versus 77%; specificity of 97% versus 61%; positive predictive value of 80% versus 40%; and negative predictive value of 94% versus 88% (Anticancer Res. 1999;19:2685-90; Cancer. 2003;97:1737-45).
The study also looked at overall survival in patients with low and high expression of CXCL1. “The patients with high expression had 5-year survival of only 50% compared to those of low expression, whose 5-year survival was 97%,” Dr. Erdrich said.
Dr. Erdrich and her coauthors reported having no financial relationships.
SOURCE: Erdrich J et al. SSO 2018, Abstract 82.
CHICAGO – Investigators have identified four genes that are overexpressed in primary melanoma, including one, CXCL1, that holds promise as a strong predictor of future metastatic disease, according to study results presented at the Society of Surgical Oncology Annual Cancer Symposium.
The study implicated four genes strongly expressed in primary melanoma tumors of patients who develop distant metastases – CXCL1, CXCL2, CBL, and CD276 – said Jennifer Erdrich, MD, MPH, of Cedars Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles. However, CXCL1 stood out. “CXCL1 overexpression is an independent predictor of developing metastatic disease. Patients with CXCL1 overexpression in the primary tumor in our study had decreased overall 5-year survival.” CXCL1 may be a useful predictive marker in primary melanoma and a potential target for immunotherapy, she said.
The rationale for analyzing the 79 genes implicated in cancer only rather than the entire array of 22,000 genes was to reduce the odds of a high false-discovery rate from 5% to 0.007%. “This is what strengthens our findings in a cohort of 37 patients,” Dr. Erdrich said.
The study analyzed pathological characteristics of the metastatic and nonmetastatic groups. Most characteristics were similar between the two groups, including location of the primary tumor in the trunk and extremities of 67% and 71%, respectively, and age of 60 years and older. The analysis noted two deviations: primary tumor size was thicker in the metastatic group (2.1 mm vs. 1.05 mm; P = .6), although Dr. Erdrich noted this was “not significantly different”; and a higher rate of ulceration in the metastatic group (50% vs. 13%; P = .05).
The genes CXCL1 and CXCL2 are both chemokines involved in growth and inflammation. “CXCL1 expression was 2.51 times greater in the metastatic group,” Dr. Erdrich said (P less than .001). Overexpression in the other three genes of interest was: CXCL2, 1.68 times greater (P less than .01); CD276, which is involved in T-cell immunity, 1.16 times greater (P = .04); and C-CBL, which is a photo-oncogene involved in the ubiquitin pathway, 1.15 times greater (P = .01). “The overexpression of all four of these was statistically significant,” she said.
Univariate analysis found ulceration of the primary along with overexpression of
the four genes to be significant predictors of metastasis. “However, in our multivariate model, three of the genes dropped out but CXCL1 remained robust,” she said.
Dr. Erdrich noted that CXCL1 is a cytokine located on chromosome 4, is secreted by macrophages, exerts its signal through CXCR2, and is one of five cytokines upregulated in lesions that respond to immunotherapy (Br J Dermatol. 2016;175:966-78).
CXCL1 compares favorably with S100, the existing blood-based biomarker for predicting recurrence in high-risk melanoma, as a predictor of metastases, Dr. Erdrich said, with an area under the curve of 0.80 versus 0.66; sensitivity of 67% versus 77%; specificity of 97% versus 61%; positive predictive value of 80% versus 40%; and negative predictive value of 94% versus 88% (Anticancer Res. 1999;19:2685-90; Cancer. 2003;97:1737-45).
The study also looked at overall survival in patients with low and high expression of CXCL1. “The patients with high expression had 5-year survival of only 50% compared to those of low expression, whose 5-year survival was 97%,” Dr. Erdrich said.
Dr. Erdrich and her coauthors reported having no financial relationships.
SOURCE: Erdrich J et al. SSO 2018, Abstract 82.
REPORTING FROM SSO 2018
Key clinical point: The CXCL1 gene may predict metastatic risk in primary melanoma.
Major findings: CXCL1 overexpression yielded 50% 5-year survival, almost half that of underexpression.
Study details: Gene analysis of samples from 37 patients with nonmetastatic primary melanoma who had surgical removal of primary lesion with median follow-up of 38 months.
Disclosures: Dr. Erdrich and her coauthors reported having no financial disclosures.
Source: Erdrich J et al. SSO 2018, Abstract 82.
Extracapsular spread predicts survival in SLN+ melanoma
CHICAGO – Extracapsular extension, or extracapsular spread (ECS), has been recognized as a risk factor in melanoma patients with macrometastatic (N+) disease, but a study from the United Kingdom has found it may also be an important indicator of progression-free and overall survival in patients who have sentinel node positive (SLN+) micrometastatic disease, a researcher reported at the Society of Surgical Oncology Annual Cancer Symposium.
“There is limited published data on ECS in micrometastatic disease, although there is progression-free survival data published in the literature,” Michelle Lo, MBCHB, MRCS, of Norfolk and Norwich University Hospitals, in Norwich, England, said in presenting the results. “The goal of the study was to determine the incidence of ECS in the micrometastatic group and to determine the prognostic significance of this.”
The study found that the incidence of ECS in the N+ group was significantly higher than the SLN+ group, 52.4% vs. 16.2% (P less than .0001). ECS proved to be a significant prognostic indicator of disease-specific survival and overall survival for both N+ and SLN+ disease. “There was no statistical difference in Breslow thickness between the two groups regardless of ECS,” she said.
Both the N+ and SLN+ groups with ECS had more lymph nodes than the ECS-absent subgroups, Dr. Lo said. However, in the ECS-absent subgroups, N+ patients had twice the number of lymph nodes than SLN+ patients. “This would suggest that ECS is a high-risk phenotype from the outset of metastases rather than something that’s developed over time,” she said. “Our data is in line with international staging data.”
The ECS-absent SLN– disease group had the most favorable survival outcomes, while those with ECS-present N+ disease had the worst outcomes. The prognosis of ECS-present, SLN+ patients was statistically similar to the ECS-absent, N+ group, she said.
In patients with SLN+ disease, Breslow thickness and N-stage were independent prognostic indicators for progression-free survival (hazard ratio 2.4, P less than .0001) and disease-free survival (HR 2.3, P less than .0001), Dr. Lo noted that median progression-free survival in SLN+ and N+ disease was 20 and 10 months, respectively. “Within our cohort of patients with ECS present in the micrometastatic group, their disease progressed within 3 years,” she said.
A multivariate analysis showed the survival data from this study was consistent with American Joint Committee on Cancer staging criteria, Dr. Lo said. “ECS is well recognized in the macrometastatic group, but we demonstrated from our data that the incidence of ECS in the micrometastatic group is one in six. It’s an independent risk factor for disease progression and an independent risk factor for worst disease-specific and overall survival, and it upstages micrometastatic disease.” ECS upstages stage III disease in a fashion similar to that of ulceration in primary melanoma, she said.
“In the absence of data to suggest otherwise, we would still recommend completion lymph node dissection in our micrometastatic group where ECS is present, and we would advocate that ECS should be included as an independent staging variable in the future,” Dr. Lo said.
Dr. Lo and her coauthors reported having no financial disclosures.
SOURCE: Lo M, et al. SSO 2018 Abstract 70.
CHICAGO – Extracapsular extension, or extracapsular spread (ECS), has been recognized as a risk factor in melanoma patients with macrometastatic (N+) disease, but a study from the United Kingdom has found it may also be an important indicator of progression-free and overall survival in patients who have sentinel node positive (SLN+) micrometastatic disease, a researcher reported at the Society of Surgical Oncology Annual Cancer Symposium.
“There is limited published data on ECS in micrometastatic disease, although there is progression-free survival data published in the literature,” Michelle Lo, MBCHB, MRCS, of Norfolk and Norwich University Hospitals, in Norwich, England, said in presenting the results. “The goal of the study was to determine the incidence of ECS in the micrometastatic group and to determine the prognostic significance of this.”
The study found that the incidence of ECS in the N+ group was significantly higher than the SLN+ group, 52.4% vs. 16.2% (P less than .0001). ECS proved to be a significant prognostic indicator of disease-specific survival and overall survival for both N+ and SLN+ disease. “There was no statistical difference in Breslow thickness between the two groups regardless of ECS,” she said.
Both the N+ and SLN+ groups with ECS had more lymph nodes than the ECS-absent subgroups, Dr. Lo said. However, in the ECS-absent subgroups, N+ patients had twice the number of lymph nodes than SLN+ patients. “This would suggest that ECS is a high-risk phenotype from the outset of metastases rather than something that’s developed over time,” she said. “Our data is in line with international staging data.”
The ECS-absent SLN– disease group had the most favorable survival outcomes, while those with ECS-present N+ disease had the worst outcomes. The prognosis of ECS-present, SLN+ patients was statistically similar to the ECS-absent, N+ group, she said.
In patients with SLN+ disease, Breslow thickness and N-stage were independent prognostic indicators for progression-free survival (hazard ratio 2.4, P less than .0001) and disease-free survival (HR 2.3, P less than .0001), Dr. Lo noted that median progression-free survival in SLN+ and N+ disease was 20 and 10 months, respectively. “Within our cohort of patients with ECS present in the micrometastatic group, their disease progressed within 3 years,” she said.
A multivariate analysis showed the survival data from this study was consistent with American Joint Committee on Cancer staging criteria, Dr. Lo said. “ECS is well recognized in the macrometastatic group, but we demonstrated from our data that the incidence of ECS in the micrometastatic group is one in six. It’s an independent risk factor for disease progression and an independent risk factor for worst disease-specific and overall survival, and it upstages micrometastatic disease.” ECS upstages stage III disease in a fashion similar to that of ulceration in primary melanoma, she said.
“In the absence of data to suggest otherwise, we would still recommend completion lymph node dissection in our micrometastatic group where ECS is present, and we would advocate that ECS should be included as an independent staging variable in the future,” Dr. Lo said.
Dr. Lo and her coauthors reported having no financial disclosures.
SOURCE: Lo M, et al. SSO 2018 Abstract 70.
CHICAGO – Extracapsular extension, or extracapsular spread (ECS), has been recognized as a risk factor in melanoma patients with macrometastatic (N+) disease, but a study from the United Kingdom has found it may also be an important indicator of progression-free and overall survival in patients who have sentinel node positive (SLN+) micrometastatic disease, a researcher reported at the Society of Surgical Oncology Annual Cancer Symposium.
“There is limited published data on ECS in micrometastatic disease, although there is progression-free survival data published in the literature,” Michelle Lo, MBCHB, MRCS, of Norfolk and Norwich University Hospitals, in Norwich, England, said in presenting the results. “The goal of the study was to determine the incidence of ECS in the micrometastatic group and to determine the prognostic significance of this.”
The study found that the incidence of ECS in the N+ group was significantly higher than the SLN+ group, 52.4% vs. 16.2% (P less than .0001). ECS proved to be a significant prognostic indicator of disease-specific survival and overall survival for both N+ and SLN+ disease. “There was no statistical difference in Breslow thickness between the two groups regardless of ECS,” she said.
Both the N+ and SLN+ groups with ECS had more lymph nodes than the ECS-absent subgroups, Dr. Lo said. However, in the ECS-absent subgroups, N+ patients had twice the number of lymph nodes than SLN+ patients. “This would suggest that ECS is a high-risk phenotype from the outset of metastases rather than something that’s developed over time,” she said. “Our data is in line with international staging data.”
The ECS-absent SLN– disease group had the most favorable survival outcomes, while those with ECS-present N+ disease had the worst outcomes. The prognosis of ECS-present, SLN+ patients was statistically similar to the ECS-absent, N+ group, she said.
In patients with SLN+ disease, Breslow thickness and N-stage were independent prognostic indicators for progression-free survival (hazard ratio 2.4, P less than .0001) and disease-free survival (HR 2.3, P less than .0001), Dr. Lo noted that median progression-free survival in SLN+ and N+ disease was 20 and 10 months, respectively. “Within our cohort of patients with ECS present in the micrometastatic group, their disease progressed within 3 years,” she said.
A multivariate analysis showed the survival data from this study was consistent with American Joint Committee on Cancer staging criteria, Dr. Lo said. “ECS is well recognized in the macrometastatic group, but we demonstrated from our data that the incidence of ECS in the micrometastatic group is one in six. It’s an independent risk factor for disease progression and an independent risk factor for worst disease-specific and overall survival, and it upstages micrometastatic disease.” ECS upstages stage III disease in a fashion similar to that of ulceration in primary melanoma, she said.
“In the absence of data to suggest otherwise, we would still recommend completion lymph node dissection in our micrometastatic group where ECS is present, and we would advocate that ECS should be included as an independent staging variable in the future,” Dr. Lo said.
Dr. Lo and her coauthors reported having no financial disclosures.
SOURCE: Lo M, et al. SSO 2018 Abstract 70.
REPORTING FROM SSO 2018
Key clinical point: Extracapsular spread (ECS) may be a reliable biomarker of survival in stage III melanoma.
Major finding: ECS status was an indicator of progression-free survival (hazard ratio 2.4; P less than .0001) in micrometastatic disease.
Study details: Retrospective cohort study of 515 patients who had micro- or macrometastatic lymphadenopathy at two U.K. centers from 2000 to 2017.
Disclosures: Dr. Lo and coauthors reported having no financial disclosures.
Source: Lo M et al. SSO 2018 Abstract 70.
How complications drive post-surgery spending upward
JACKSONVILLE, FLA. – Post-hospital care after major surgery is a significant driver of overall surgery-related spending, and hospitals are focused on reducing this spending as payers move away from the fee-for-service model.
with a trend toward utilizing more expensive inpatient post-acute care and less outpatient care, according to an analysis of more than 700,000 Medicare procedures presented at the Association for Academic Surgery/Society of University Surgeons Academic Surgical Congress.
This cross-sectional cohort study involved 707,943 cases in the Medicare database of coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG), colectomy, and total hip replacement (THR) from January 2009 to June 2012. The study found postoperative complication rates of 32% for CABG, 31% for colectomy, and 5% for THR. Postoperative complications resulted in an additional $4,083 spent on post-acute care following a CABG, an additional $4,049 after a colectomy, and an additional $1,742 after a THR.
This spending followed an increasing utilization of inpatient post-acute care and decreasing use of outpatient settings. “Relative to clinically similar patients with an uncomplicated course, patients who experienced a postoperative complication were more likely to utilize inpatient post-acute care than outpatient care,” Dr. Kanters said. For CABG, utilization rates of inpatient post-acute care increased 9.6% versus a decrease of 10.4% for outpatient post-acute care; for colectomy, inpatient post-acute care utilization increased 7.3% versus a drop of 6.2% for outpatient care; and for THR, inpatient post-acute care utilization rose 5.3% versus a drop of 2.4% for outpatient post-acute care. “The greatest impact is seen in the higher-risk procedures,” Dr. Kanters said.
The complications included cardiopulmonary complications, venous thromboembolism, renal failure, surgical site infections, and postoperative hemorrhage.
“Reductions in post-acute care spending will be central to hospitals’ efforts to reduce episode costs around major surgery,” Dr. Kanters said. “It is understood that complications are associated with increased cost, and this study helps quantify to what degree complications drive differences in spending on post-acute care.”
Hospitals’ efforts to reduce post-acute care spending must focus on preventing complications. “Thus, quality improvement efforts that reduce postoperative complications will be a key component of success in emerging payment reform,” Dr. Kanters noted
Session moderator Courtney Balentine, MD, of the University of Alabama at Birmingham, asked Dr. Kanters whether the research considered the incentives hospital systems have for referring patients to their own post-acute care facilities. “Post-acute care association with a single hospital has been documented as a likely incentive for discharge to a non-home destination,” Dr. Kanters replied, which leads to higher utilization of “certain” post-acute care facilities and higher costs. However, she said, this study’s dataset could not parse out that trend. “That’s certainly something that needs to be investigated,” she said.
Dr. Kanters and her coauthors had no financial relationships to disclose.
Source: Kanters AE. Annual Academic Surgical Congress 2018.
JACKSONVILLE, FLA. – Post-hospital care after major surgery is a significant driver of overall surgery-related spending, and hospitals are focused on reducing this spending as payers move away from the fee-for-service model.
with a trend toward utilizing more expensive inpatient post-acute care and less outpatient care, according to an analysis of more than 700,000 Medicare procedures presented at the Association for Academic Surgery/Society of University Surgeons Academic Surgical Congress.
This cross-sectional cohort study involved 707,943 cases in the Medicare database of coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG), colectomy, and total hip replacement (THR) from January 2009 to June 2012. The study found postoperative complication rates of 32% for CABG, 31% for colectomy, and 5% for THR. Postoperative complications resulted in an additional $4,083 spent on post-acute care following a CABG, an additional $4,049 after a colectomy, and an additional $1,742 after a THR.
This spending followed an increasing utilization of inpatient post-acute care and decreasing use of outpatient settings. “Relative to clinically similar patients with an uncomplicated course, patients who experienced a postoperative complication were more likely to utilize inpatient post-acute care than outpatient care,” Dr. Kanters said. For CABG, utilization rates of inpatient post-acute care increased 9.6% versus a decrease of 10.4% for outpatient post-acute care; for colectomy, inpatient post-acute care utilization increased 7.3% versus a drop of 6.2% for outpatient care; and for THR, inpatient post-acute care utilization rose 5.3% versus a drop of 2.4% for outpatient post-acute care. “The greatest impact is seen in the higher-risk procedures,” Dr. Kanters said.
The complications included cardiopulmonary complications, venous thromboembolism, renal failure, surgical site infections, and postoperative hemorrhage.
“Reductions in post-acute care spending will be central to hospitals’ efforts to reduce episode costs around major surgery,” Dr. Kanters said. “It is understood that complications are associated with increased cost, and this study helps quantify to what degree complications drive differences in spending on post-acute care.”
Hospitals’ efforts to reduce post-acute care spending must focus on preventing complications. “Thus, quality improvement efforts that reduce postoperative complications will be a key component of success in emerging payment reform,” Dr. Kanters noted
Session moderator Courtney Balentine, MD, of the University of Alabama at Birmingham, asked Dr. Kanters whether the research considered the incentives hospital systems have for referring patients to their own post-acute care facilities. “Post-acute care association with a single hospital has been documented as a likely incentive for discharge to a non-home destination,” Dr. Kanters replied, which leads to higher utilization of “certain” post-acute care facilities and higher costs. However, she said, this study’s dataset could not parse out that trend. “That’s certainly something that needs to be investigated,” she said.
Dr. Kanters and her coauthors had no financial relationships to disclose.
Source: Kanters AE. Annual Academic Surgical Congress 2018.
JACKSONVILLE, FLA. – Post-hospital care after major surgery is a significant driver of overall surgery-related spending, and hospitals are focused on reducing this spending as payers move away from the fee-for-service model.
with a trend toward utilizing more expensive inpatient post-acute care and less outpatient care, according to an analysis of more than 700,000 Medicare procedures presented at the Association for Academic Surgery/Society of University Surgeons Academic Surgical Congress.
This cross-sectional cohort study involved 707,943 cases in the Medicare database of coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG), colectomy, and total hip replacement (THR) from January 2009 to June 2012. The study found postoperative complication rates of 32% for CABG, 31% for colectomy, and 5% for THR. Postoperative complications resulted in an additional $4,083 spent on post-acute care following a CABG, an additional $4,049 after a colectomy, and an additional $1,742 after a THR.
This spending followed an increasing utilization of inpatient post-acute care and decreasing use of outpatient settings. “Relative to clinically similar patients with an uncomplicated course, patients who experienced a postoperative complication were more likely to utilize inpatient post-acute care than outpatient care,” Dr. Kanters said. For CABG, utilization rates of inpatient post-acute care increased 9.6% versus a decrease of 10.4% for outpatient post-acute care; for colectomy, inpatient post-acute care utilization increased 7.3% versus a drop of 6.2% for outpatient care; and for THR, inpatient post-acute care utilization rose 5.3% versus a drop of 2.4% for outpatient post-acute care. “The greatest impact is seen in the higher-risk procedures,” Dr. Kanters said.
The complications included cardiopulmonary complications, venous thromboembolism, renal failure, surgical site infections, and postoperative hemorrhage.
“Reductions in post-acute care spending will be central to hospitals’ efforts to reduce episode costs around major surgery,” Dr. Kanters said. “It is understood that complications are associated with increased cost, and this study helps quantify to what degree complications drive differences in spending on post-acute care.”
Hospitals’ efforts to reduce post-acute care spending must focus on preventing complications. “Thus, quality improvement efforts that reduce postoperative complications will be a key component of success in emerging payment reform,” Dr. Kanters noted
Session moderator Courtney Balentine, MD, of the University of Alabama at Birmingham, asked Dr. Kanters whether the research considered the incentives hospital systems have for referring patients to their own post-acute care facilities. “Post-acute care association with a single hospital has been documented as a likely incentive for discharge to a non-home destination,” Dr. Kanters replied, which leads to higher utilization of “certain” post-acute care facilities and higher costs. However, she said, this study’s dataset could not parse out that trend. “That’s certainly something that needs to be investigated,” she said.
Dr. Kanters and her coauthors had no financial relationships to disclose.
Source: Kanters AE. Annual Academic Surgical Congress 2018.
AT THE ANNUAL ACADEMIC SURGICAL CONGRESS
Key clinical point: Complications after major surgery are a huge driver of increasing post-acute care spending.
Major finding: Complications after major surgery that led to post-acute care increased costs by $4,083 for coronary artery bypass grafting, $4,049 for colectomy, and $1,742 for total hip replacement.
Data source: Cross-sectional cohort study of all Medicare beneficiaries who had coronary artery bypass graft (n = 281,940), colectomy (n = 189,229) and total hip replacement (n = 231,773) between January 2009 and June 2012.
Disclosures: Dr. Kanters and her coauthors reported having no financial disclosures.
Source: Kanters AE. Annual Academic Surgical Congress 2018.
Study finds gaps in bundled colectomy payments
CHICAGO – As Medicare transitions to a value-based model that uses bundled payments, oncologic surgeons and medical institutions may want to take a close look at enhanced recovery pathways and more minimally invasive surgery for colectomy in both benign and malignant disease to close potential gaps in reimbursement and outcomes, according to a retrospective study of 4-year Medicare data presented at the Society of Surgical Oncology Annual Cancer Symposium here.
The study evaluated reimbursement rates of three Medicare Severity–Diagnosis Related Groups (MS-DRG) assigned to the study cohort of 10,928 cases in the Medicare database from 2011-2015: 331 (benign disease), 330 (colon cancer/no metastases), and 329 (metastatic colon cancer). “There is little data comparing the relative impact of MS-DRG on cost and reimbursement for oncologic versus benign colon resection as it relates to the index admission, post-acute care costs, and Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services total costs,” Dr. Hughes said.
With descriptive statistics, the study showed that benign resection resulted in higher average total charges than malignant disease ($66,033 vs. $60,581, respectively; P less than .001) and longer hospital stays (7.25 days vs. 6.92; P less than .002), Dr. Hughes said. However, Medicare reimbursements were similar for both pathology groups: $10,358 for benign disease versus $10,483 for oncologic pathology (P = .434). Cancer patients were about 25% more likely to be discharged to a rehabilitation facility than were those in the benign group (16.6% vs. 12.4%, respectively; P less than .001).
“What we know from other data is that, compared to fee-for-service for surgical colectomies, a value-based payment model resulted in lower payments for the index admission,” Dr. Hughes said. “A greater proportion of these patients also contributed to a negative margin for hospitals when compared to the fee-for-service model, as well as a higher risk across acute care services.”
Of patients in the study cohort, 67% had surgery for malignant disease. Both benign and malignant groups had more open colectomies than minimally invasive colectomies: 60% and 36.8%, respectively, of procedures in the benign group and 63% and 40% in the cancer group (P less than .001).
The goal of the study was to identify potential gaps in adopting MS-DRG for the bundled payment model in benign versus malignant colectomy, Dr. Hughes said. The study identified three gaps:
- DRG poorly differentiates between benign and malignant disease. This problem is evidenced by the higher cost for the index admission in benign disease. “Whereas in malignant disease, there is a greater unrecognized cost-shifting to post-acute care services which are not addressed by the DRG system,” he said.
- The dominance of open colectomy where MIS could reduce episode costs. The study cited research that reported the advantages of MIS include lower episode costs in both younger and older patients, by $1,466 and $632, respectively; shorter hospital stays by 1.46 days; 20% lower 30-day readmissions rates; and lower rates of post-acute care services (J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A. 2017 Dec 13. doi: 10.1089/lap.2017.0521)
- Potential for DRG migration from code 331 (benign disease) to 330 (colon cancer but not with metastasis). Dr. Hughes and his coauthors published a study that reported a 14.2% rate of DRG migration in this same Medicare cohort, that is, classified as 331 on admission but migrated to 330. So, compared with other patients, this group ended up with longer LOS (7.6 vs. 4.8 days); higher total charges ($63,149 vs. $46,339); and higher CMS payment ($11,159 vs. $7,210) (Am J Surg. 2018;215:493-6). “We also identified a potential role for enhanced-recovery pathways to mitigate these factors,” he said.
He noted that the different stakeholders – hospitals, surgeons, anesthesiologists, hospitalists, other physicians, nurses, and extenders – will have to resolve how to divide bundled payments. “The biggest thing is communication between these groups, because moving forward CMS is trying to step away from the role of determining who gets paid what,” Dr. Hughes said. He noted this finding is consistent with his own previously published findings, along with those from senior study coauthor Anthony J. Senagore, MD, FACS, on resource consumption in value-based care.
Dr. Hughes and coauthors reported having no financial disclosures. Dr. Hughes is supported by the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases of the National Institutes of Health.
SOURCE: Huges BD. SSO 2018.
CHICAGO – As Medicare transitions to a value-based model that uses bundled payments, oncologic surgeons and medical institutions may want to take a close look at enhanced recovery pathways and more minimally invasive surgery for colectomy in both benign and malignant disease to close potential gaps in reimbursement and outcomes, according to a retrospective study of 4-year Medicare data presented at the Society of Surgical Oncology Annual Cancer Symposium here.
The study evaluated reimbursement rates of three Medicare Severity–Diagnosis Related Groups (MS-DRG) assigned to the study cohort of 10,928 cases in the Medicare database from 2011-2015: 331 (benign disease), 330 (colon cancer/no metastases), and 329 (metastatic colon cancer). “There is little data comparing the relative impact of MS-DRG on cost and reimbursement for oncologic versus benign colon resection as it relates to the index admission, post-acute care costs, and Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services total costs,” Dr. Hughes said.
With descriptive statistics, the study showed that benign resection resulted in higher average total charges than malignant disease ($66,033 vs. $60,581, respectively; P less than .001) and longer hospital stays (7.25 days vs. 6.92; P less than .002), Dr. Hughes said. However, Medicare reimbursements were similar for both pathology groups: $10,358 for benign disease versus $10,483 for oncologic pathology (P = .434). Cancer patients were about 25% more likely to be discharged to a rehabilitation facility than were those in the benign group (16.6% vs. 12.4%, respectively; P less than .001).
“What we know from other data is that, compared to fee-for-service for surgical colectomies, a value-based payment model resulted in lower payments for the index admission,” Dr. Hughes said. “A greater proportion of these patients also contributed to a negative margin for hospitals when compared to the fee-for-service model, as well as a higher risk across acute care services.”
Of patients in the study cohort, 67% had surgery for malignant disease. Both benign and malignant groups had more open colectomies than minimally invasive colectomies: 60% and 36.8%, respectively, of procedures in the benign group and 63% and 40% in the cancer group (P less than .001).
The goal of the study was to identify potential gaps in adopting MS-DRG for the bundled payment model in benign versus malignant colectomy, Dr. Hughes said. The study identified three gaps:
- DRG poorly differentiates between benign and malignant disease. This problem is evidenced by the higher cost for the index admission in benign disease. “Whereas in malignant disease, there is a greater unrecognized cost-shifting to post-acute care services which are not addressed by the DRG system,” he said.
- The dominance of open colectomy where MIS could reduce episode costs. The study cited research that reported the advantages of MIS include lower episode costs in both younger and older patients, by $1,466 and $632, respectively; shorter hospital stays by 1.46 days; 20% lower 30-day readmissions rates; and lower rates of post-acute care services (J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A. 2017 Dec 13. doi: 10.1089/lap.2017.0521)
- Potential for DRG migration from code 331 (benign disease) to 330 (colon cancer but not with metastasis). Dr. Hughes and his coauthors published a study that reported a 14.2% rate of DRG migration in this same Medicare cohort, that is, classified as 331 on admission but migrated to 330. So, compared with other patients, this group ended up with longer LOS (7.6 vs. 4.8 days); higher total charges ($63,149 vs. $46,339); and higher CMS payment ($11,159 vs. $7,210) (Am J Surg. 2018;215:493-6). “We also identified a potential role for enhanced-recovery pathways to mitigate these factors,” he said.
He noted that the different stakeholders – hospitals, surgeons, anesthesiologists, hospitalists, other physicians, nurses, and extenders – will have to resolve how to divide bundled payments. “The biggest thing is communication between these groups, because moving forward CMS is trying to step away from the role of determining who gets paid what,” Dr. Hughes said. He noted this finding is consistent with his own previously published findings, along with those from senior study coauthor Anthony J. Senagore, MD, FACS, on resource consumption in value-based care.
Dr. Hughes and coauthors reported having no financial disclosures. Dr. Hughes is supported by the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases of the National Institutes of Health.
SOURCE: Huges BD. SSO 2018.
CHICAGO – As Medicare transitions to a value-based model that uses bundled payments, oncologic surgeons and medical institutions may want to take a close look at enhanced recovery pathways and more minimally invasive surgery for colectomy in both benign and malignant disease to close potential gaps in reimbursement and outcomes, according to a retrospective study of 4-year Medicare data presented at the Society of Surgical Oncology Annual Cancer Symposium here.
The study evaluated reimbursement rates of three Medicare Severity–Diagnosis Related Groups (MS-DRG) assigned to the study cohort of 10,928 cases in the Medicare database from 2011-2015: 331 (benign disease), 330 (colon cancer/no metastases), and 329 (metastatic colon cancer). “There is little data comparing the relative impact of MS-DRG on cost and reimbursement for oncologic versus benign colon resection as it relates to the index admission, post-acute care costs, and Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services total costs,” Dr. Hughes said.
With descriptive statistics, the study showed that benign resection resulted in higher average total charges than malignant disease ($66,033 vs. $60,581, respectively; P less than .001) and longer hospital stays (7.25 days vs. 6.92; P less than .002), Dr. Hughes said. However, Medicare reimbursements were similar for both pathology groups: $10,358 for benign disease versus $10,483 for oncologic pathology (P = .434). Cancer patients were about 25% more likely to be discharged to a rehabilitation facility than were those in the benign group (16.6% vs. 12.4%, respectively; P less than .001).
“What we know from other data is that, compared to fee-for-service for surgical colectomies, a value-based payment model resulted in lower payments for the index admission,” Dr. Hughes said. “A greater proportion of these patients also contributed to a negative margin for hospitals when compared to the fee-for-service model, as well as a higher risk across acute care services.”
Of patients in the study cohort, 67% had surgery for malignant disease. Both benign and malignant groups had more open colectomies than minimally invasive colectomies: 60% and 36.8%, respectively, of procedures in the benign group and 63% and 40% in the cancer group (P less than .001).
The goal of the study was to identify potential gaps in adopting MS-DRG for the bundled payment model in benign versus malignant colectomy, Dr. Hughes said. The study identified three gaps:
- DRG poorly differentiates between benign and malignant disease. This problem is evidenced by the higher cost for the index admission in benign disease. “Whereas in malignant disease, there is a greater unrecognized cost-shifting to post-acute care services which are not addressed by the DRG system,” he said.
- The dominance of open colectomy where MIS could reduce episode costs. The study cited research that reported the advantages of MIS include lower episode costs in both younger and older patients, by $1,466 and $632, respectively; shorter hospital stays by 1.46 days; 20% lower 30-day readmissions rates; and lower rates of post-acute care services (J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A. 2017 Dec 13. doi: 10.1089/lap.2017.0521)
- Potential for DRG migration from code 331 (benign disease) to 330 (colon cancer but not with metastasis). Dr. Hughes and his coauthors published a study that reported a 14.2% rate of DRG migration in this same Medicare cohort, that is, classified as 331 on admission but migrated to 330. So, compared with other patients, this group ended up with longer LOS (7.6 vs. 4.8 days); higher total charges ($63,149 vs. $46,339); and higher CMS payment ($11,159 vs. $7,210) (Am J Surg. 2018;215:493-6). “We also identified a potential role for enhanced-recovery pathways to mitigate these factors,” he said.
He noted that the different stakeholders – hospitals, surgeons, anesthesiologists, hospitalists, other physicians, nurses, and extenders – will have to resolve how to divide bundled payments. “The biggest thing is communication between these groups, because moving forward CMS is trying to step away from the role of determining who gets paid what,” Dr. Hughes said. He noted this finding is consistent with his own previously published findings, along with those from senior study coauthor Anthony J. Senagore, MD, FACS, on resource consumption in value-based care.
Dr. Hughes and coauthors reported having no financial disclosures. Dr. Hughes is supported by the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases of the National Institutes of Health.
SOURCE: Huges BD. SSO 2018.
REPORTING FROM SSO 2018
Key clinical point: Medicare payment methodology does not truly reflect episode costs for colectomy.
Major finding: Colectomy charges were higher for benign disease than for cancer.
Study details: Retrospective cohort study of 10,928 patients in a national Medicare database who had colon surgery during 2011-2014.
Disclosures: The investigators had no financial relationships to disclose. Dr. Hughes is supported by the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases of the National Institutes of Health.
Source: Huges BD. SSO 2018.
Surgery after immunotherapy effective in advanced melanoma
CHICAGO – Surgical resection is an effective treatment in selected patients with advanced melanoma treated with checkpoint blockade immunotherapy, according to a study of an institutional database at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York presented at the Society of Surgical Oncology Annual Cancer Symposium.
“In the era of improved systemic therapy, checkpoint blockade for metastatic melanoma and the ability to surgically resect all disease after treatment is associated with an estimated survival of 75%, better than what’s been previously reported,” said Danielle M. Bello, MD, of Memorial Sloan Kettering.
The study analyzed a cohort of 237 patients who had unresectable stage III and IV melanoma and were treated with checkpoint blockade, including CTLA-4, programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1), and programmed death-ligand 1 inhibitors, and then had surgical resection during 2003-2017.
Dr. Bello noted two previous studies that had reported encouraging outcomes in advanced melanoma. The first highlighted the role for surgery in stage IV melanoma. In that phase 3 clinical trial, patients had resection of up to five sites of metastatic disease and were then randomized to one of two treatment arms: bacillus Calmette-Guérin and allogeneic whole-cell vaccine (Canvaxin) or bacillus Calmette-Guérin and placebo. While this trial found no difference in overall survival between groups, it did report a 5-year overall survival exceeding 40% in both treatment arms, which highlighted that Stage IV patients who underwent resection of all their disease had survival outcomes superior to outcomes previously reported (Ann Surg Onc. 2017 Dec;24[13]:3991-4000). The second trial, the recent Checkmate 067 trial, emphasized the role of effective systemic checkpoint blockade in advanced stage III and IV melanoma. It reported that patients treated with combined nivolumab/ipilimumab therapy had not reached median overall survival at minimum 36 months of follow-up (N Engl J Med. 2017 Oct 5;377[14]:1345-56).
“We know that checkpoint inhibitor therapy has revolutionized the landscape of unresectable stage III and IV melanoma,” Dr. Bello said. However, despite encouraging trial readouts of overall survival, progression-free survival is a different story. “We know that the median progression-free survival even in our best combination therapy is 11.5 months, meaning that 50% of patients will go on to progress in a year and many will go on to surgical resection of their disease and do quite well,” she said.
Dr. Bello and her coauthors set out to describe outcomes of a “highly selective group” of patients who had surgical resection after checkpoint inhibitor therapy. “The majority of patients in our study had a cutaneous primary melanoma,” she said. Median age was 63 years, and 88% had stage IV disease. Regarding checkpoint blockade regimen, 62% received anti–CTLA-4, and 29% received combination anti–PD-1 and anti–CLTA-4 either sequentially or concomitantly prior to resection.
The median time from the start of immunotherapy to the first operation was 7 months. Forty-six percent had no further postoperative treatment after resection. In those, who did require further treatment, the majority received anti–PD-1 followed by targeted BRAF/MEK therapy, she said.
The analysis stratified patients into the following three categories based on radiological response to immunotherapy:
- Overall response to checkpoint blockade and the index lesion was either smaller since initiation of therapy or stabilized (12; 5.1%). Half of this group had a pathological complete response.
- Isolated site of progressive disease with residual stable disease elsewhere or as the only site of progressive disease (106; 44.7%).
- Multiple sites of progressive and palliative operations (119; 50.2%).
Median overall survival was 21 months in the entire study cohort with a median follow-up of 23 months, Dr. Bello said. “Those resected to no evidence of disease (NED) – 87 patients – had an estimated 5-year overall survival of 75%.” The NED group did not reach median OS.
The analysis also stratified overall survival by response to immunotherapy. “Patients with responding or stable disease had an estimated 90% 5-year overall survival,” Dr. Bellow said. “Those with one isolated progressive lesion that was resected had a 60% 5-year overall survival.” A more detailed analysis of the latter group found that those who had a resection to NED had an improved overall survival of 75% at 5 years. Resected patients who had residual remaining disease had a 30% 5-year overall survival.
“Further follow-up is needed to assess the durability and contributions of surgery, and further studies are underway to identify biomarkers associated with improved survival after immunotherapy and surgery,” Dr. Bello said.
SOURCE: Bello DM et al. SSO 2018, Abstract 5.
CHICAGO – Surgical resection is an effective treatment in selected patients with advanced melanoma treated with checkpoint blockade immunotherapy, according to a study of an institutional database at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York presented at the Society of Surgical Oncology Annual Cancer Symposium.
“In the era of improved systemic therapy, checkpoint blockade for metastatic melanoma and the ability to surgically resect all disease after treatment is associated with an estimated survival of 75%, better than what’s been previously reported,” said Danielle M. Bello, MD, of Memorial Sloan Kettering.
The study analyzed a cohort of 237 patients who had unresectable stage III and IV melanoma and were treated with checkpoint blockade, including CTLA-4, programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1), and programmed death-ligand 1 inhibitors, and then had surgical resection during 2003-2017.
Dr. Bello noted two previous studies that had reported encouraging outcomes in advanced melanoma. The first highlighted the role for surgery in stage IV melanoma. In that phase 3 clinical trial, patients had resection of up to five sites of metastatic disease and were then randomized to one of two treatment arms: bacillus Calmette-Guérin and allogeneic whole-cell vaccine (Canvaxin) or bacillus Calmette-Guérin and placebo. While this trial found no difference in overall survival between groups, it did report a 5-year overall survival exceeding 40% in both treatment arms, which highlighted that Stage IV patients who underwent resection of all their disease had survival outcomes superior to outcomes previously reported (Ann Surg Onc. 2017 Dec;24[13]:3991-4000). The second trial, the recent Checkmate 067 trial, emphasized the role of effective systemic checkpoint blockade in advanced stage III and IV melanoma. It reported that patients treated with combined nivolumab/ipilimumab therapy had not reached median overall survival at minimum 36 months of follow-up (N Engl J Med. 2017 Oct 5;377[14]:1345-56).
“We know that checkpoint inhibitor therapy has revolutionized the landscape of unresectable stage III and IV melanoma,” Dr. Bello said. However, despite encouraging trial readouts of overall survival, progression-free survival is a different story. “We know that the median progression-free survival even in our best combination therapy is 11.5 months, meaning that 50% of patients will go on to progress in a year and many will go on to surgical resection of their disease and do quite well,” she said.
Dr. Bello and her coauthors set out to describe outcomes of a “highly selective group” of patients who had surgical resection after checkpoint inhibitor therapy. “The majority of patients in our study had a cutaneous primary melanoma,” she said. Median age was 63 years, and 88% had stage IV disease. Regarding checkpoint blockade regimen, 62% received anti–CTLA-4, and 29% received combination anti–PD-1 and anti–CLTA-4 either sequentially or concomitantly prior to resection.
The median time from the start of immunotherapy to the first operation was 7 months. Forty-six percent had no further postoperative treatment after resection. In those, who did require further treatment, the majority received anti–PD-1 followed by targeted BRAF/MEK therapy, she said.
The analysis stratified patients into the following three categories based on radiological response to immunotherapy:
- Overall response to checkpoint blockade and the index lesion was either smaller since initiation of therapy or stabilized (12; 5.1%). Half of this group had a pathological complete response.
- Isolated site of progressive disease with residual stable disease elsewhere or as the only site of progressive disease (106; 44.7%).
- Multiple sites of progressive and palliative operations (119; 50.2%).
Median overall survival was 21 months in the entire study cohort with a median follow-up of 23 months, Dr. Bello said. “Those resected to no evidence of disease (NED) – 87 patients – had an estimated 5-year overall survival of 75%.” The NED group did not reach median OS.
The analysis also stratified overall survival by response to immunotherapy. “Patients with responding or stable disease had an estimated 90% 5-year overall survival,” Dr. Bellow said. “Those with one isolated progressive lesion that was resected had a 60% 5-year overall survival.” A more detailed analysis of the latter group found that those who had a resection to NED had an improved overall survival of 75% at 5 years. Resected patients who had residual remaining disease had a 30% 5-year overall survival.
“Further follow-up is needed to assess the durability and contributions of surgery, and further studies are underway to identify biomarkers associated with improved survival after immunotherapy and surgery,” Dr. Bello said.
SOURCE: Bello DM et al. SSO 2018, Abstract 5.
CHICAGO – Surgical resection is an effective treatment in selected patients with advanced melanoma treated with checkpoint blockade immunotherapy, according to a study of an institutional database at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York presented at the Society of Surgical Oncology Annual Cancer Symposium.
“In the era of improved systemic therapy, checkpoint blockade for metastatic melanoma and the ability to surgically resect all disease after treatment is associated with an estimated survival of 75%, better than what’s been previously reported,” said Danielle M. Bello, MD, of Memorial Sloan Kettering.
The study analyzed a cohort of 237 patients who had unresectable stage III and IV melanoma and were treated with checkpoint blockade, including CTLA-4, programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1), and programmed death-ligand 1 inhibitors, and then had surgical resection during 2003-2017.
Dr. Bello noted two previous studies that had reported encouraging outcomes in advanced melanoma. The first highlighted the role for surgery in stage IV melanoma. In that phase 3 clinical trial, patients had resection of up to five sites of metastatic disease and were then randomized to one of two treatment arms: bacillus Calmette-Guérin and allogeneic whole-cell vaccine (Canvaxin) or bacillus Calmette-Guérin and placebo. While this trial found no difference in overall survival between groups, it did report a 5-year overall survival exceeding 40% in both treatment arms, which highlighted that Stage IV patients who underwent resection of all their disease had survival outcomes superior to outcomes previously reported (Ann Surg Onc. 2017 Dec;24[13]:3991-4000). The second trial, the recent Checkmate 067 trial, emphasized the role of effective systemic checkpoint blockade in advanced stage III and IV melanoma. It reported that patients treated with combined nivolumab/ipilimumab therapy had not reached median overall survival at minimum 36 months of follow-up (N Engl J Med. 2017 Oct 5;377[14]:1345-56).
“We know that checkpoint inhibitor therapy has revolutionized the landscape of unresectable stage III and IV melanoma,” Dr. Bello said. However, despite encouraging trial readouts of overall survival, progression-free survival is a different story. “We know that the median progression-free survival even in our best combination therapy is 11.5 months, meaning that 50% of patients will go on to progress in a year and many will go on to surgical resection of their disease and do quite well,” she said.
Dr. Bello and her coauthors set out to describe outcomes of a “highly selective group” of patients who had surgical resection after checkpoint inhibitor therapy. “The majority of patients in our study had a cutaneous primary melanoma,” she said. Median age was 63 years, and 88% had stage IV disease. Regarding checkpoint blockade regimen, 62% received anti–CTLA-4, and 29% received combination anti–PD-1 and anti–CLTA-4 either sequentially or concomitantly prior to resection.
The median time from the start of immunotherapy to the first operation was 7 months. Forty-six percent had no further postoperative treatment after resection. In those, who did require further treatment, the majority received anti–PD-1 followed by targeted BRAF/MEK therapy, she said.
The analysis stratified patients into the following three categories based on radiological response to immunotherapy:
- Overall response to checkpoint blockade and the index lesion was either smaller since initiation of therapy or stabilized (12; 5.1%). Half of this group had a pathological complete response.
- Isolated site of progressive disease with residual stable disease elsewhere or as the only site of progressive disease (106; 44.7%).
- Multiple sites of progressive and palliative operations (119; 50.2%).
Median overall survival was 21 months in the entire study cohort with a median follow-up of 23 months, Dr. Bello said. “Those resected to no evidence of disease (NED) – 87 patients – had an estimated 5-year overall survival of 75%.” The NED group did not reach median OS.
The analysis also stratified overall survival by response to immunotherapy. “Patients with responding or stable disease had an estimated 90% 5-year overall survival,” Dr. Bellow said. “Those with one isolated progressive lesion that was resected had a 60% 5-year overall survival.” A more detailed analysis of the latter group found that those who had a resection to NED had an improved overall survival of 75% at 5 years. Resected patients who had residual remaining disease had a 30% 5-year overall survival.
“Further follow-up is needed to assess the durability and contributions of surgery, and further studies are underway to identify biomarkers associated with improved survival after immunotherapy and surgery,” Dr. Bello said.
SOURCE: Bello DM et al. SSO 2018, Abstract 5.
REPORTING FROM SSO 2018
Key clinical point: Surgery after immunotherapy can achieve good outcomes in advanced melanoma.
Major findings: Complete resection achieved an estimated 5-year overall survival of 75%.
Study details: Analysis of a cohort of 237 patients from a prospectively maintained institutional melanoma database who had surgery after immunotherapy for unresectable stage III and IV melanoma during 2003-2017.
Disclosures: Dr. Bello reported having no financial disclosures. Some coauthors reported financial relationships with various pharmaceutical companies.
Source: Bello DM et al. SSO 2018, Abstract 5.
Can cN0 and pCR limit axillary surgery in some breast cancer patients?
CHICAGO – Patients with clinically node-negative HER2-positive or triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) who achieve a pathological complete response in the breast after neoadjuvant chemotherapy could benefit from clinical trials to evaluate the option of omitting axillary node surgery in this population, according to a retrospective analysis of more than 22,000 cases in the National Cancer Database reported at the Society of Surgical Oncology Annual Cancer Symposium.
Alison U. Barron, MD, breast surgery oncology fellow at Mayo, presented the results. “In patients with HER2+ breast cancer and TNBC who are clinically node negative (cN0) and achieve a breast pathological complete response, this data supports omitting axillary surgery in clinical trials assessing no surgery after neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC),” she said. “In patients who present with clinically positive node [cN1] disease with a breast pathological complete response, surgical staging of the axilla is still recommended.”
“Response rates to NAC have increased,” Dr. Barron said. She cited previous reports that showed response rates ranging from 9%-13% for anthracyclines to 19%-26% with the addition of taxanes, and to 60%-70% with the addition of trastuzumab and pertuzumab in HER2+ disease. “Furthermore, we know that tumor biology affects response rates, with TNBC and HER2+ disease having the highest rates of pathologic complete response,” she said.
“In the current era when we frequently operate on patients, we find no residual cancer in the tissue at the time of surgery,” Dr. Barron said. “The question arises as to whether we can limit surgery in patients with a pathological complete response.” While imaging has limited ability to reliably detect pCR with 100% specificity, she noted that recent trials have shown the potential of tumor-bed biopsy to identify pCR in patients after NAC (Ann Surg. Published online Oct. 23, 2017. doi: 10.1097/SLA.0000000000002573; JAMA Surg. 2017;152(7):665-70).
The National Cancer Database data the Mayo researchers analyzed yielded an overall breast pCR of 29%. “When broken down by tumor subtype, we saw significantly higher rates of breast pCR in patients with HER2+ disease (42%, n = 3,107) and TNBC (35%, n = 2,469), compared with patients with hormone-receptor positive (HR+)/HER2-negative disease (12%, n = 1,020),” she said.
When the analysis looked specifically at patients who were clinically node negative at presentation and had a pCR, the rates of positive lymph nodes at the time of surgery were 1.6% in HER2+ patients and 1.7% in TNBC disease, Dr. Barron said. “If there was residual disease in the breast, the nodal positivity rate was significantly higher, at 18% in HER2+ and 12% in TNBC,” she added. In those who were clinical N1, the breast pCR rates were similar – 41% in HER2+ and 35% in TNBC – but nodal positivity rates were significantly higher, at 13% and 14%, respectively.
The HR+/HER2- group had significantly lower rates of pCR: 12% in the cN0 and 13% in the cN1 subgroups. This subgroup also had higher nodal positivity rates – in the cN0 subgroup, 4% in those with a breast pCR and 34% in those with residual disease in the breast, and in the cN1 subgroup, 30% and 83%, respectively.
When the investigators looked at the extent of nodal burden in cN0 patients with breast pCR, they found the rate of N2 and N3 disease was near zero across all biologic subtypes. “In patients who were cN1 at presentation and achieved a breast pCR but had residual axillary disease, the majority had N1 disease with only 1.5%-4% having four or more positive lymph nodes,” Dr. Barron said.
In the discussion, session moderator Carla Fisher, MD, of Indiana University, Indianapolis, said, “While we might not be ready for prime time to not evaluate the lymph nodes of these patients, this study does speak to the importance of establishing N0 and N1 prior to NAC.” In reply to her question about how Mayo routinely evaluates node status prior to NAC, Dr. Barron noted that Mayo performs routine axillary ultrasound. However, the NCDB data does not specify what imaging was done. This is thought to vary across the centers in the NCDB, Dr. Barron said.
Noted Dr. Boughey, “The findings from this study provide data that can be used moving forward for planning future clinical trials.” She also said that these findings do not alter the current standard of care; that still calls for breast and nodal surgery after NAC. However, the ongoing NRG-BR005 phase II clinical trial is assessing the accuracy of tumor-bed biopsy in these situations (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03188393). “The results from that trial will help inform future trials evaluating eliminating breast surgery in patients with an excellent response to NAC,” Dr. Boughey said. “Those patients could also potentially avoid axillary surgery based on the data we have now.”
Dr. Barron and Dr. Boughey and coauthors reported having no financial disclosures.
SOURCE: Barron AU et al. Society of Surgical Oncology Annual Cancer Symposium, Abstract 48.
CHICAGO – Patients with clinically node-negative HER2-positive or triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) who achieve a pathological complete response in the breast after neoadjuvant chemotherapy could benefit from clinical trials to evaluate the option of omitting axillary node surgery in this population, according to a retrospective analysis of more than 22,000 cases in the National Cancer Database reported at the Society of Surgical Oncology Annual Cancer Symposium.
Alison U. Barron, MD, breast surgery oncology fellow at Mayo, presented the results. “In patients with HER2+ breast cancer and TNBC who are clinically node negative (cN0) and achieve a breast pathological complete response, this data supports omitting axillary surgery in clinical trials assessing no surgery after neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC),” she said. “In patients who present with clinically positive node [cN1] disease with a breast pathological complete response, surgical staging of the axilla is still recommended.”
“Response rates to NAC have increased,” Dr. Barron said. She cited previous reports that showed response rates ranging from 9%-13% for anthracyclines to 19%-26% with the addition of taxanes, and to 60%-70% with the addition of trastuzumab and pertuzumab in HER2+ disease. “Furthermore, we know that tumor biology affects response rates, with TNBC and HER2+ disease having the highest rates of pathologic complete response,” she said.
“In the current era when we frequently operate on patients, we find no residual cancer in the tissue at the time of surgery,” Dr. Barron said. “The question arises as to whether we can limit surgery in patients with a pathological complete response.” While imaging has limited ability to reliably detect pCR with 100% specificity, she noted that recent trials have shown the potential of tumor-bed biopsy to identify pCR in patients after NAC (Ann Surg. Published online Oct. 23, 2017. doi: 10.1097/SLA.0000000000002573; JAMA Surg. 2017;152(7):665-70).
The National Cancer Database data the Mayo researchers analyzed yielded an overall breast pCR of 29%. “When broken down by tumor subtype, we saw significantly higher rates of breast pCR in patients with HER2+ disease (42%, n = 3,107) and TNBC (35%, n = 2,469), compared with patients with hormone-receptor positive (HR+)/HER2-negative disease (12%, n = 1,020),” she said.
When the analysis looked specifically at patients who were clinically node negative at presentation and had a pCR, the rates of positive lymph nodes at the time of surgery were 1.6% in HER2+ patients and 1.7% in TNBC disease, Dr. Barron said. “If there was residual disease in the breast, the nodal positivity rate was significantly higher, at 18% in HER2+ and 12% in TNBC,” she added. In those who were clinical N1, the breast pCR rates were similar – 41% in HER2+ and 35% in TNBC – but nodal positivity rates were significantly higher, at 13% and 14%, respectively.
The HR+/HER2- group had significantly lower rates of pCR: 12% in the cN0 and 13% in the cN1 subgroups. This subgroup also had higher nodal positivity rates – in the cN0 subgroup, 4% in those with a breast pCR and 34% in those with residual disease in the breast, and in the cN1 subgroup, 30% and 83%, respectively.
When the investigators looked at the extent of nodal burden in cN0 patients with breast pCR, they found the rate of N2 and N3 disease was near zero across all biologic subtypes. “In patients who were cN1 at presentation and achieved a breast pCR but had residual axillary disease, the majority had N1 disease with only 1.5%-4% having four or more positive lymph nodes,” Dr. Barron said.
In the discussion, session moderator Carla Fisher, MD, of Indiana University, Indianapolis, said, “While we might not be ready for prime time to not evaluate the lymph nodes of these patients, this study does speak to the importance of establishing N0 and N1 prior to NAC.” In reply to her question about how Mayo routinely evaluates node status prior to NAC, Dr. Barron noted that Mayo performs routine axillary ultrasound. However, the NCDB data does not specify what imaging was done. This is thought to vary across the centers in the NCDB, Dr. Barron said.
Noted Dr. Boughey, “The findings from this study provide data that can be used moving forward for planning future clinical trials.” She also said that these findings do not alter the current standard of care; that still calls for breast and nodal surgery after NAC. However, the ongoing NRG-BR005 phase II clinical trial is assessing the accuracy of tumor-bed biopsy in these situations (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03188393). “The results from that trial will help inform future trials evaluating eliminating breast surgery in patients with an excellent response to NAC,” Dr. Boughey said. “Those patients could also potentially avoid axillary surgery based on the data we have now.”
Dr. Barron and Dr. Boughey and coauthors reported having no financial disclosures.
SOURCE: Barron AU et al. Society of Surgical Oncology Annual Cancer Symposium, Abstract 48.
CHICAGO – Patients with clinically node-negative HER2-positive or triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) who achieve a pathological complete response in the breast after neoadjuvant chemotherapy could benefit from clinical trials to evaluate the option of omitting axillary node surgery in this population, according to a retrospective analysis of more than 22,000 cases in the National Cancer Database reported at the Society of Surgical Oncology Annual Cancer Symposium.
Alison U. Barron, MD, breast surgery oncology fellow at Mayo, presented the results. “In patients with HER2+ breast cancer and TNBC who are clinically node negative (cN0) and achieve a breast pathological complete response, this data supports omitting axillary surgery in clinical trials assessing no surgery after neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC),” she said. “In patients who present with clinically positive node [cN1] disease with a breast pathological complete response, surgical staging of the axilla is still recommended.”
“Response rates to NAC have increased,” Dr. Barron said. She cited previous reports that showed response rates ranging from 9%-13% for anthracyclines to 19%-26% with the addition of taxanes, and to 60%-70% with the addition of trastuzumab and pertuzumab in HER2+ disease. “Furthermore, we know that tumor biology affects response rates, with TNBC and HER2+ disease having the highest rates of pathologic complete response,” she said.
“In the current era when we frequently operate on patients, we find no residual cancer in the tissue at the time of surgery,” Dr. Barron said. “The question arises as to whether we can limit surgery in patients with a pathological complete response.” While imaging has limited ability to reliably detect pCR with 100% specificity, she noted that recent trials have shown the potential of tumor-bed biopsy to identify pCR in patients after NAC (Ann Surg. Published online Oct. 23, 2017. doi: 10.1097/SLA.0000000000002573; JAMA Surg. 2017;152(7):665-70).
The National Cancer Database data the Mayo researchers analyzed yielded an overall breast pCR of 29%. “When broken down by tumor subtype, we saw significantly higher rates of breast pCR in patients with HER2+ disease (42%, n = 3,107) and TNBC (35%, n = 2,469), compared with patients with hormone-receptor positive (HR+)/HER2-negative disease (12%, n = 1,020),” she said.
When the analysis looked specifically at patients who were clinically node negative at presentation and had a pCR, the rates of positive lymph nodes at the time of surgery were 1.6% in HER2+ patients and 1.7% in TNBC disease, Dr. Barron said. “If there was residual disease in the breast, the nodal positivity rate was significantly higher, at 18% in HER2+ and 12% in TNBC,” she added. In those who were clinical N1, the breast pCR rates were similar – 41% in HER2+ and 35% in TNBC – but nodal positivity rates were significantly higher, at 13% and 14%, respectively.
The HR+/HER2- group had significantly lower rates of pCR: 12% in the cN0 and 13% in the cN1 subgroups. This subgroup also had higher nodal positivity rates – in the cN0 subgroup, 4% in those with a breast pCR and 34% in those with residual disease in the breast, and in the cN1 subgroup, 30% and 83%, respectively.
When the investigators looked at the extent of nodal burden in cN0 patients with breast pCR, they found the rate of N2 and N3 disease was near zero across all biologic subtypes. “In patients who were cN1 at presentation and achieved a breast pCR but had residual axillary disease, the majority had N1 disease with only 1.5%-4% having four or more positive lymph nodes,” Dr. Barron said.
In the discussion, session moderator Carla Fisher, MD, of Indiana University, Indianapolis, said, “While we might not be ready for prime time to not evaluate the lymph nodes of these patients, this study does speak to the importance of establishing N0 and N1 prior to NAC.” In reply to her question about how Mayo routinely evaluates node status prior to NAC, Dr. Barron noted that Mayo performs routine axillary ultrasound. However, the NCDB data does not specify what imaging was done. This is thought to vary across the centers in the NCDB, Dr. Barron said.
Noted Dr. Boughey, “The findings from this study provide data that can be used moving forward for planning future clinical trials.” She also said that these findings do not alter the current standard of care; that still calls for breast and nodal surgery after NAC. However, the ongoing NRG-BR005 phase II clinical trial is assessing the accuracy of tumor-bed biopsy in these situations (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03188393). “The results from that trial will help inform future trials evaluating eliminating breast surgery in patients with an excellent response to NAC,” Dr. Boughey said. “Those patients could also potentially avoid axillary surgery based on the data we have now.”
Dr. Barron and Dr. Boughey and coauthors reported having no financial disclosures.
SOURCE: Barron AU et al. Society of Surgical Oncology Annual Cancer Symposium, Abstract 48.
REPORTING FROM SSO 2018
Key clinical point: Neoadjuvant chemotherapy for certain breast cancers achieves low rates of nodal positivity.
Major finding: In clinically node-negative HER2+ and triple-negative disease, nodal positivity after NAC in patients that had breast pathological complete response was less than 2%.
Study details: Review of 22,695 patients in NCDB with clinical T1 or T2 disease from 2010 to 2014.
Disclosure: Dr. Barron and coauthors reported having no financial disclosures.
Source: Barron AU et al. Society of Surgical Oncology Annual Cancer Symposium, Abstract 48.