METHODS: Using the UHC database (2009-2010), 63 liver transplant centres were identified that were organized into tertiles based on annual centre case volume and stratified by severity of illness (SOI). Utilization endpoints included hospital and intensive care unit (ICU) length of stay (LOS), cost and in-hospital mortality.

RESULTS: In all, 5130 transplants were identified. Mortality was improved at high volume centres (HVC) vs. low volume centres (LVC), 2.9 vs. 3.4%, respectively. HVC had a lower median LOS than LVC (9 vs. 10 days, P < 0.0001), shorter median ICU stay than LVC and medium volume centres (MVC) (2 vs. 3 and 3 days, respectively, P < 0.0001) and lower direct costs than LVC and MVC ($90,946 vs. $98,055 and $101,014, respectively, P < 0.0001); this effect persisted when adjusted for severity of illness.

CONCLUSIONS: This UHC-based cohort shows that increased centre volume results in improved long-term post-liver transplant outcomes and more efficient use of hospital resources thereby lowering the cost. A better understanding of these mechanisms can lead to informed decisions and optimization of the pay for performance model in liver transplantation.

METHODS: Pancreatic resections were identified from the Nationwide Inpatient Sample (1998-2006), and categorized as proximal, distal, or nonspecified by the International Classification of Diseases, 9th edition. Logistic regression and bootstrap methods were used to estimate in-hospital mortality using demographics, diagnosis, comorbidities (Charlson index), procedure, and hospital volume; 80% of this cohort was selected randomly to create the score and 20% was used for validation. Score assignments were subsequently individually fitted to risk distributions around specific mortality rates.

RESULTS: Sixteen thousand one hundred sixteen patient discharges were identified. Nationwide in-hospital mortality was 5.3%. Integers were assigned to predictors (age group, Charlson index, sex, diagnosis, pancreatectomy type, and hospital volume) and applied to an additive score. Three score groups were defined to stratify in-hospital mortality (national mortality, 1.3%, 4.9%, and 14.3%; P < .0001), with sufficient discrimination of derivation and validation sets (C statistics, 0.72 and 0.74). Score groups were shifted algorithmically to calculate risk based on institutional data (eg, with institutional mortality of 2.0%, low-, medium-, and high-risk patient groups had 0.5%, 1.9%, and 5.4% mortality, respectively). A web-based tool was developed and is available online (http://www.umassmed.edu/surgery/panc_mortality_custom.aspx).

CONCLUSION: To maximize patient benefit, objective assessment of risk for major procedures is necessary. We developed a Surgical Outcomes Analysis and Research risk score predicting pancreatectomy mortality that combines national and institution-specific data to enhance decision-making. This type of risk stratification tool may identify opportunities to improve care for patients undergoing specific operative procedures.

METHODS: We queried our trauma registry for all adult patients (age, >/=18 years) with injury codes for "fall-from-height" or "struck-by-tree" (2005-present) and reviewed charts to determine injuries sustained during home roof or tree work. Patients injured during occupational duties (indicated by Workman's Compensation) were excluded. Descriptive statistics were used to determine patient demographics, injury patterns, and outcomes.

RESULTS: A total of 129 patients were injured performing roof and tree maintenance during the study period. Of these patients, 90 (69.8%) were fall from height and 39 (30.2%) were struck by tree. Mean (SD) age was 45 (14) years. The majority were male (124, 96.1%) and white (116, 89.9%). Nearly half (59, 45.7%) were privately insured; a quarter (32, 24.8%) had no insurance. Mean (SD) Injury Severity Score was 12.7 (9.3). Injury distributions were as follows: head injury, 48.8%; facial fractures, 10.1%; cervical spine fractures, 3.9%; thoracic, lumbar, and sacral spine fractures, 28.1%; rib fractures, 27.3%; intrathoracic injuries, 22.5%; liver/spleen injuries, 6.2%; pelvic fractures, 15.6%; upper-extremity fractures, 27.3%; and lower-extremity fractures, 14.7%. Of the patients, 19 (14.7%) had one or more regions with Abbreviated Injury Scale score of higher than 3. Mean (SD) length of stay was 5.3 (7.6) days. Except for 2 deaths (1.6%), discharge dispositions were as follows: home, 64.2%; home with services, 10.1%; rehabilitation, 17.8%; and skilled nursing, 5.4%.

CONCLUSION: Weekend warriors performing home roof and tree maintenance sustain serious injuries with a potential for a long-term disability at young ages. Injury prevention efforts should educate the public about the hazards of high-risk home maintenance, possibly encouraging Occupational Health and Safety Administration-regulated protective measures or deferral to trained professionals.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Epidemiologic study, level III.

METHODS: Using 2001-2008 California Cancer Registry, we identified 2,229 patients who underwent gastrectomy with adequate nodal evaluation (>/=15 lymph nodes) for American Joint Committee on Cancer stage I-IV M0 gastric adenocarcinoma. Cox proportional hazard analyses were used to evaluate the impact of surgery alone on survival.

RESULTS: Nearly 70% of our cohort had T1/2 tumors and 29% had N0 disease. Forty-nine percent of the cohort underwent surgery alone. These patients were more likely to be older, Medicare-insured, with T1 and N0 disease. On unadjusted analyses, persons who underwent surgery alone for stage I or N0 disease experienced 1- and 3-year overall and cancer-specific survival comparable to those who received adjuvant therapy. On multivariate analyses for stage I or N0 disease, surgery alone predicted superior survival outcomes than when combined with adjuvant therapies.

CONCLUSION: Surgery alone with adequate nodal evaluation may have a role in low-risk gastric cancer. To corroborate these findings, surgery with adequate lymphadenectomy alone (as treatment arm) deserves consideration in the design of gastric cancer trials to provide effective yet resource-conserving, rather than maximally tolerated, treatments.

OBJECTIVES: We employ the Nationwide Inpatient Sample to look at changes in DBS utilization over time.

METHODS: We identified all individuals with PD (332.0) and essential tremor (ET) (333.1) who underwent DBS (02.93) from 1998 to 2007. We examined demographics, hospital status, comorbidities, and in-hospital systemic/technical complications. DBS patients from 2000 and 2007 were compared using chi(2) tests.

RESULTS: PD patients from the 2007 sample who underwent DBS were older (p = 0.01). Both ET and PD patients had significantly more comorbidities in 2007 (p < 0.001). In-hospital complications decreased from 3.8 to 2.8%. DBS was performed in medium- or high-volume centers in 70% of cases in 2000 and in 50% in 2007. In all groups, a majority of cases (range 65-71%) underwent DBS at hospitals in the western and southern USA.

CONCLUSIONS: Patients who underwent DBS in the 2007 sample were older and had more comorbidities than those in the 2000 sample; in-hospital complications remained low. Understanding trends in DBS is helpful in assessing how the technology is adopted and what relationships should be further explored.

METHODS: 48,247 adults (>/=18 y old) underwent colectomy in ACS NSQIP, as grouped by surgical approach (laparoscopic versus open), urgency (emergent versus elective), and operative year (2005 to 2008). Primary outcomes measured morbidity, mortality, perioperative, and postoperative complications.

RESULTS: The proportion of laparoscopic colectomies performed increased annually (26.3% to 34.0%), while open colectomies decreased (73.7% to 66.0%; P < 0.0001). Most emergent colectomies were open procedures (93.5%) representing 24.3% of all open cases. The overall risk-adjusted morbidity and mortality for all colectomy procedures did not show a statistically significant change over time, however, morbidity and mortality increased among open colectomies (r = 0.03) and decreased among laparoscopic colectomies (r = -0.04; P < 0.0001). Postoperative complications reduced significantly including superficial surgical site infections (9.17% to 8.20%, P < 0.004), pneumonia (4.60% to 3.97%, P < 0.0001), and sepsis (4.72%, 2005; 6.81%, 2006; 5.62%, 2007; 5.09%, 2008; P < 0.0002). Perioperative improvements included operative time (169.2 to 160.0 min), PRBC transfusions (0.27 to 0.25 units) and length of stay (10.5 to 6.61 d; P < 0.0001).

CONCLUSION: It appears that laparoscopic colectomies are growing in popularity over open colectomies, but the need for emergent open procedures remains unchanged. Across all colectomies, however, key postoperative and perioperative complications have improved over time. Participation in ACS NSQIP demonstrates quality improvement and may encourage greater enrollment.

METHODS: We identified patients who were surgically treated for gastric cancer at Commission on Cancer (CoC) hospitals from 2001 to 2006. Patient, tumor, and treatment factors were compared separately by hospital volume and type. Multivariable analyses were used to evaluate the impact of hospital attributes on delivery of guideline recommended gastric cancer care: adequate lymphadenectomy (>/=15 lymph nodes), and adjuvant multimodality therapy (for AJCC Ib-IVM0), controlling for covariates.

RESULTS: More than 1,490 CoC hospitals performed 37,124 gastrectomies. High-volume and teaching CoC hospitals were more likely to treat younger patients, non-whites, patients with lower AJCC stage, and to perform adequate lymphadenectomy than low-volume and community CoC hospitals (p ≤ 0.001). Hospital volume and type, however, were not associated with receipt of adjuvant multimodality therapy. These associations persisted in our multivariable analyses to show that CoC hospital attributes were associated with adequate lymphadenectomy, but marginally predictive of receipt of adjuvant multimodality therapy.

CONCLUSIONS: The strong association between CoC hospital volume or type and guideline-recommended care diminishes after gastric cancer surgery. Variations in referral, insurance, and documentation patterns are potential explanations for these findings. These results highlight some limitations of using hospital attributes as a sole predictor of optimal cancer care.

Methods: Rates of disease and outcomes were derived from a review of the literature. Using TreeAge-Pro software, a decision model was created to simulate expected health outcomes for populations with high GBC incidence, following 3 treatment strategies: no early intervention, one-time screening ultrasound (US), or PCCY. Lifetime cancer-specific survival was the outcome of interest. Sensitivity analyses were performed to determine threshold values.

Results: Based on our model, populations where lifetime risk of GBC exceeds 0.4% may benefit from early intervention by US or PCCY. Two-way sensitivity analysis shows that over a relatively narrow range of disease incidence, US may be favored if sensitivity exceeds 50%. In many cases where lifetime risk exceeds 1%, PCCY may improve survival.

Conclusions: GBC varies in incidence, but affects many individuals in some populations in the Americas. The lethality of GBC may justify aggressive public health intervention including screening or prophylactic cholecystectomy. Decision analysis models using best-available evidence may help determine the optimal treatment of individuals at risk for GBC.

Methods: The Nationwide Inpatient Sample was queried to identify all esophageal, gastric, liver and pancreas resections performed for cancer during 1998-2009. Annual incidence, major in-hospital postoperative complications, length of stay and in-hospital mortality were evaluated. Univariate and multivariate analysis performed by chi square and logistic regression. For all comparisons, p-values

Results: 298,871 patients (nationally-weighted) underwent cancer directed foregut surgery 1998-2009. Of those 19,002 (6%) were esophagectomies, 123,198 (41%) were gastrectomies, 62,313 (21%) were hepatectomies and 94,358 (32%) were pancreatectomies. From early years (1998-2000) to late years (2007-2009) use of laparoscopy in foregut surgery increased from 3% to 5%. Laparoscopy in esophagectomy increased the most from 1% to 5%, while its use in hepatectomy remained unchanged at 4%. Gastrectomy and pancreatectomy involving minimally invasive techniques increased from 2% to 5% and 5% to 6%, respectively. For all four foregut surgery types, patient comorbidities increased over time; patients with ≥2 major comorbidities increased from 53% to 64%. Conversely, patient mortality and length of stay (LOS) decreased over time. However, we observed an increase in complications for all sites combined from 22.8% to 24.4%. Laparoscopy was not significantly associated with decreased complications, but was associated with lower mortality when compared to open resection alone 3.1% vs. 5%. Independent predictors of increased complications included older age, gender, higher comorbidity, hospital volume. Older age, male sex, higher comorbidity, low volume center and non-use of laparoscopy were independent predictors of in-hospital mortality.

Conclusion: Foregut surgery in the modern era is being increasingly deployed on sicker patients. While decreased in-hospital mortality and LOS are commendable, complication rates remain substantial and nondecreasing. Minimally invasive techniques have minor but increasing penetrance in foregut surgery. Our results suggest comparable advances and potential pitfalls among major types of foregut surgery in the current era.

Methods: SEER-Medicare 1991-2005 was used to identify patients with Stage 3-4 pancreatic cancer. Complication rates were calculated including post-op infection, myocardial infarction, aspiration pneumonia, DVT/PE, pulmonary compromise, gastric bleed, acute renal failure, and reoperation. Kaplan-Meier survival analysis was performed. Finally, Cox proportional hazards modeling was used to control for the effects of age, sex, race, stage, and resection.

Results: Of 22,314 pancreatic cancer patients, 858 (3.9%) patients were Stage 3, and 11,149 (50.0%) stage 4. Post-procedure median survival for all patients is approximately two months, with longest survival for biliary bypass patients (3.2mo, 95% CI(2.9-3.7), and lowest survival for jejunostomy 1.3 mo (1.2-1.5) and gastrostomy 1.5 mo (1.4-1.8). Post-procedure 30-day mortality was highest for gastrostomy patients at 41.5%; followed by jejunostomy (39.1%), celiac plexus block (30.0%), gastric bypass (23.8%), biliary bypass (17.8%), and biliary stent (21.2%). The rate of complications averaged 40%, with highest rate for gastrostomy (47.4%) and gastric bypass (45.3%) and lowest for celiac plexus block (29.3%). Stage 4 disease was an independent predictor of death for patients undergoing five out of six procedures.

Conclusion: We found that morbidity and mortality of palliative procedures in unresectable pancreatic cancer is high, especially in stage 4 patients. Further studies need to be conducted to identify patients who will have sufficient expected post-procedure survival to benefit from these palliative interventions.

Methods: Using SEER-Medicare linked database (1991-2005), we identified 7131 patients who had undergone colectomy with CRLM. Demographic, clinical and tumor factors were examined as determinants of therapy. Treatment options consisted of surgery (resection, ablation) or chemotherapy. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed to determine predictors of overall survival after colectomy.

Results: 635 patients (8.9%) underwent liver directed surgery defined as either a liver resection (n=495), ablation (n=216) or both (n=76) for CRLM. 322 patients (51%) were female and 313 (49%) were male. 147 patients (23%) were SES 1, 230 patients (36%) were SES 2, and 258 (41%) were SES 3. There was a survival advantage to receiving liver surgery or chemotherapy in selected patients with CRLM (p<0.001). Of the 635 patients who received liver surgery, 62.7% received chemotherapy within 6 months of surgery. Adjusted overall survival after colectomy was greatest in Asian/Other race; poor prognostic indicators included increasing comorbidities, advanced age and development of complications within one month after liver surgery.

Conclusion: In the Medicare population, patients with CRLM who receive potentially curative therapy such as resection, ablation or chemotherapy experience a substantial survival advantage; despite this only 8.9% of patients received directed therapy for their metastasis. Barriers to treatment and its underutilization must be identified to improve survival in patients diagnosed with CRLM after colectomy.

METHODS: Patients with pancreatic adenocarcinoma who underwent resection were identified in Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results-Medicare (1991-2005). Claims for abdominal imaging <=5 years after resection were analyzed. Patients receiving annual CT scans were identified. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed. To assess frequency of annual CT scanning in patients with superior survival, the top decile was further analyzed.

RESULTS: Eleven thousand eight hundred fifty studies were performed on 2,217 patients. Ten thousand five hundred forty-two (89%) were CT scans. The median number of scans doubled from three in 1991 to six in 2005 (p < 0.0001). Among patients with sufficient survival to allow for analysis, 51.3% received annual CT scans, while only 32.4% of top-performing patients received annual scans. Univariate analysis of the 10% of patients with superior survival did not reveal any significant benefit associated with annual imaging.

CONCLUSION: Utilization of complex imaging after pancreatic cancer resection has increased substantially among Medicare beneficiaries, driven primarily by an increasing number of CT scans. Our study demonstrated no significant survival benefit among patients who received scans on a routine basis.

METHODS: Patients (n= 172) undergoing operations for neuroendocrine liver metastases from any primary were identified from a prospective liver database. Recorded data and medical record review were used to analyse the type of procedure, length of hospital stay, peri-operative morbidity, tumour recurrence, progression,and survival.

RESULTS: The median age was 56.8 years (range 11.5-80.7 years). 48.3% of patients were female. Median overall survival was 9.6 years (range 89 days to 22 years). On multivariate analysis, lung/thymic primaries were associated with worse survival [hazard ratio (HR): 15.6, confidence interval (CI): 4.3-56.8, P= 0.002]. Severe post-operative complications were also associated with worse long-term survival (P < 0.001). A positive resection margin status (R1) was not associated with a worse overall survival probability (P approximately 0.8).

DISCUSSION: Early and aggressive surgical management of hepatic metastases from neuroendocrine tumours is associated with significant long-term survival rates. Radiofrequency ablation is a reasonable option if a lesion is unresectable. R1 resections, unlike many other cancers, are not associated with a worse overall survival.

METHODS: During 1990 to 2004, we studied 650 consecutive patients who underwent pancreaticoduodenectomy by 3 surgeons who began their attending careers at 1 center. Operative time, estimated blood loss (EBL), length of hospital stay (LOS), and the status of resection margins (for pancreatic adenocarcinoma) were analyzed. The chi2, independent t test and Mann-Whitney U test were used to evaluate differences in categorical, normally distributed continuous, and non-normally distributed continuous variables, respectively. Using serial groups of 30 cases, median operative time, EBL, and LOS were calculated and the trend over time modeled using third-order polynomial equations. Trends in retroperitoneal margin positivity (R0/R1) were assessed.

RESULTS: From the first 60 cases per surgeon to the second 60 cases per surgeon, the median EBL dropped (1100 vs 725 mL, P < .001), operative time decreased (589 vs 513 minutes, P < .001), and LOS decreased (15 vs 13 days, P = .004). The proportion of microscopically positive or suspicious margins also decreased from the surgeons' first 60 cases each to the second 60 cases (30% vs 8%, P < .001). Extended analysis of a single surgeon's cases suggested that additional experience provided further incremental improvement (P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS: Pancreaticoduodenectomy has an inherent learning curve. After 60 cases, surgeons achieved significantly decreased EBL, operative time, and LOS, and carried out more margin-negative resections. Improvement in measured outcomes continues during the operative career.

SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: A positive resection margin after PD is considered to be a poor prognostic factor, and some have proposed that an R1 margin may be a biologic predictor of more aggressive disease. The natural history of patients treated with contemporary multimodality therapy who underwent a positive margin PD has not been described.

METHODS: We analyzed our experience from 1990 to 2004, which included the prospective use of a standardized system for pathologic analysis of all PD specimens. All patients who underwent PD met objective computed tomographic criteria for resection. Standard pathologic evaluation of the PD specimen included permanent section analysis of the final bile duct, pancreatic, and superior mesenteric artery (SMA) margins. First recurrences (all sites) were defined as local, regional, or distant. Survival and follow-up were calculated from the date of initial histologic diagnosis to the dates of first recurrence or death and last contact, respectively.

RESULTS: PD was performed on 360 consecutive patients with pancreatic adenocarcinoma. Minimum follow-up was 12 months (median, 51.9 months). The resection margins were negative (R0) in 300 patients (83.3%) and positive (R1) in 60 (16.7%); no patients had macroscopically positive (R2) margins. By multivariate analysis (MVA), high mean operative blood loss and large tumor size were independent predictors of an R1 resection. Patients who underwent an R1 resection had a median overall survival of 21.5 months compared with 27.8 months in patients who underwent an R0 resection. After controlling for other variables on MVA, resection status did not independently affect survival. By MVA, only lymph node metastases, major perioperative complications, and blood loss adversely affected survival.

CONCLUSIONS: There was no statistically significant difference in patient survival or recurrence based on R status. However, this series is unique in the incorporation of a standardized surgical technique for the SMA dissection, the prospective use of a reproducible system for pathologic evaluation of resection margins, the absence of R2 resections, and the frequent use of multimodality therapy.

METHODS: Patient demographics, tumor-relatedfeatures, and treatment-related features were analyzed by ethnicity. Univariate analyses were performed using the chi-square test. Overall median and relative survival rates were examined by using the Kaplan-Meier method. Cox proportional-hazards models were used to identify the predictors of survival outcomes.

RESULTS: Between 1995 and 2002, 81,095 cases of gastric adenocarcinoma were entered into the NCDB. There were 57,943 white patients (71.5%), 11,094 African-American patients (13.7%), 5665 Hispanic patients (7%), 4736 Asian/Pacific Islander (API) patients (5.8%), and 1657 patients of other ethnicities (2%). Significant differences were observed according to ethnicity among the variables that were compared (all P < .01). In patients with stage I and II disease, the 5-year relative survival rates for APIs (stage I, 77.2%; stage II, 48%) were more favorable than for whites (stage I, 58.7%; stage II, 32.8%), African Americans (stage I, 55.9%; stage II, 37.9%), and Hispanics (stage I, 60.8%; stage II, 39.3%). The overall median survival of APIs was more favorable than that of others (P < .01). Predictors of a better outcome were Asian race, female sex, younger age, earlier stage, lower grade, distal tumors, multimodality treatment, and care at a teaching hospital.

CONCLUSIONS: Ethnicity was associated with differences in presentation and outcome of patients with gastric adenocarcinoma. APIs had a more favorable outcome than patients of other ethnicities. Further studies should target underlying biologic and socioeconomic factors to explain these differences.

METHODS: Using the Nationwide Inpatient Sample, discharge records with surgeon identifiers for all nontrauma PR (n = 3581) were examined from 1998 to 2005. Surgeons were divided into 2 groups: (HV; > or = 5 operations/year) or low volume (LV; <5 operations>/year). We created a logistic regression model to examine the relationship between surgeon type and operative mortality while accounting for patient and hospital factors. To further eliminate differences in cohorts and determine the true effect of surgeon volume on mortality, case-control groups based on patient demographics were created using propensity scores.

RESULTS: One hundred thirty-four HV and 1450 LV surgeons performed 3581 PR in 742 hospitals across 12 states that reported surgeon identifier information over the 8-year period. Patients who underwent PR by HV surgeons were more likely to be male, white raced, and a resident of a high-income zip code (P < 0.05). Significant independent factors for in-hospital mortality after PR included increasing age, male gender, Medicaid insurance, and surgery by HV surgeon. HV surgeons had a lower adjusted mortality compared with LV surgeons (2.4% vs. 6.4%; P < 0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS: After controlling for patient demographics and factors, pancreatic resection by a HV surgeon in this case-controlled cohort was independently associated with a 51% reduction in in-hospital mortality.

PATIENTS AND METHODS: Medical records of patients with invasive gastric cancer treated from 1985 to 1999 were reviewed. Diagnoses were pathologically confirmed. Differences in categorical variables were assessed using the chi(2) test. Logistic regression was used for multivariate analyses. Median survival was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method. Cox proportional hazards modeling was used to assess the impact of covariates.

RESULTS: Of 1,897 patients, 301 (15.9%) were Hispanic. Hispanics were significantly younger at diagnosis than non-Hispanic whites (53.1 +/- 14.4 years v 59.4 +/- 12.7 years, respectively; P < .005) or African Americans (57.6 +/- 15.3 years, P < .005). Hispanics were less likely to have proximal gastric cancers compared with whites (38.9% v 59.5%, respectively; P < .005). Hispanics were more likely to have mucinous/signet-ring type histology (42.5%) than whites (27.4%) and African Americans (32.5%; P < .005). Hispanics were more likely to require total gastrectomy (51%) compared with whites (38%), African Americans (38%), and Asians (36%; P = .039). Among patients with metastases at diagnosis, Hispanics were less likely to have liver metastasis than whites (30% v 44%, respectively; P = .009) but more likely to have peritoneal metastasis than whites and African Americans (54% v 41% and 47%, respectively; P = .002). In Cox analyses, Asian race, earlier stage, papillary/tubular histology, distal location, and younger age were favorable predictors of survival.

CONCLUSION: Hispanic ethnicity does not impact survival in gastric adenocarcinoma. However, histology, metastasis pattern, tumor localization, and other clinical parameters differ sufficiently to warrant further investigation into the epidemiology, pathogenesis, and molecular biology of gastric cancer in this population.