Background: Racial/ethnic and socioeconomic disparities are assumed to negatively affect treatment and outcomes for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Our aim was to investigate the interaction of racial/ethnic and socioeconomic factors with stage of disease and type of treatment facility in receipt of treatment and overall survival (OS) of patients with HCC. Methods: All patients with primary HCC in the US Safety-Net Collaborative database (2012–2014) were included. Patients were categorized into “safety-net” or “tertiary referral center” based on where they received treatment. Socioeconomic factors were determined at the zip-code level and included median income and percent of adults who graduated from high-school. Primary outcomes were receipt of treatment and OS. Results: On MV Cox regression, neither race/ethnicity, median income, nor care provided at a SNH were associated with decreased OS (all p > 0.05). Independent predictors of decreased OS included lack of insurance (HR 1.34), less educational attainment (HR 1.59) higher MELD score (HR 1.07), higher stage at diagnosis (II:HR 1.34, III:HR 2.87, IV:HR 3.23), and not receiving treatment (HR 3.94) (all p < 0.05). Factors associated with not receiving treatment included history of alcohol abuse (OR 0.682), increasing MELD (OR 0.874), higher stage at diagnosis (III: OR 0.234, IV: OR 0.210) and care at a safety net facility (OR 0.424) There were no racial/ethnic or socioeconomic disparities in receipt of treatment. Conclusions: There is no intrinsic or direct association of race/ethnicity, socioeconomic status, or being treated at select safety-net hospitals with worse outcomes. Poor liver function, no insurance, and advanced stage of presentation are the main determinants of not receiving treatment and decreased survival.

Background: Access to health insurance and curative interventions [surgery/liver-directed-therapy (LDT)] affects survival for early-stage hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). The aim of this multi-institutional study of high-volume safety-net hospitals (SNHs) and their tertiary-academic-centers (AC) was to identify the impact of type/lack of insurance on survival disparities across hospitals, particularly SNHs whose mission is to minimize insurance related access-to-care barriers for vulnerable populations. Methods: Early-stage HCC patients (2012–2014) from the US Safety-Net Collaborative were propensity-score matched by treatment at SNH/AC. Overall survival (OS) was the primary outcome. Multivariable Cox proportional-hazard analysis was performed accounting for sociodemographic/clinical parameters. Results: Among 925 patients, those with no insurance (NI) had decreased curative surgery, compared to those with government insurance (GI) and private insurance [PI, (PI-SNH:60.5% vs. GI-SNH:33.1% vs. NI-SNH:13.6%, p < 0.001)], and decreased median OS (PI-SNH:32.1 vs. GI-SNH:22.8 vs. NI-SNH:9.4 months, p = 0.002). On multivariable regression controlling for sociodemographic/clinical parameters, NI-SNH (HR:2.5, 95% CI:1.3–4.9, p = 0.007) was the only insurance type/hospital system combination with significantly worse OS. Conclusion: NI-SNH patients received less curative treatment than other insurance/hospitals types suggesting that treatment barriers, beyond access-to-care, need to be identified and addressed to achieve survival equity in early-stage HCC for vulnerable populations (NI-SNH).

Background and Objectives: Although minority race has been associated with worse cancer outcomes, the interaction of race with pathologic variables and outcomes of patients with gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (GEP-NETs) is not known. Methods: Patients from the US Neuroendocrine Study Group (2000–2016) undergoing curative-intent resection of GEP-NETs were included. Given few patients of other races, only Black and White patients were analyzed. Results: A total of 1143 patients were included. Median age was 58 years, 49% were male, 14% Black, and 86% White. Black patients were more likely to be uninsured (7% vs 2%, P = .011), and to have symptomatic bleeding (13% vs 7%, P = .009), emergency surgery (7% vs 3%, P = .006), and positive lymph nodes (LN) (47% vs 36%, P = .021). However, Black patients had improved 5-year recurrence-free survival (RFS) (90% vs 80%, P = .008). Quality of care was comparable between races, seen by similar LN yield, R0 resections, postoperative complications, and need for reoperation/readmission (all P > .05). While both races were more likely to have pancreas-NETs, Black patients had more small bowel-NETs (22% vs 13%, P < .001). LN positivity was prognostic for pancreas-NETs (5-year RFS 67% vs 83%, P = .001) but not for small-bowel NETs. Conclusions: Black patients with GEP-NETs had more adverse characteristics and higher LN positivity. Despite this, Black patients have improved RFS. This may be attributed to the epidemiologic differences in the primary site of GEP-NETs and variable prognostic value of LN-positive disease.

Background: Pancreatoduodenectomy (PD) for duodenal adenoma (DA) resection may be associated with excessive surgical risk for patients with potentially benign lesions, given the absence of pancreatic duct obstruction. We examined factors associated with final malignant pathology and evaluated the postoperative course of patients with DA versus pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC). Methods: We retrospectively analyzed patients with DA who underwent PD from 2008 to 2018 and assessed the accuracy rate of preoperative biopsy and factors associated with final malignant pathology. Complications for DA patients were compared with those of matched PDAC patients. Results: Forty-five consecutive patients who underwent PD for DA were identified, and the preoperative biopsy false negative rate was 29. Factors associated with final malignant pathology included age over 70 years, preoperative biliary obstruction, and common bile duct diameter > 8 mm (p < 0.05). Compared with patients with PDAC (n = 302), DA patients experienced more major complications (31% vs. 15%, p < 0.01), more grade C postoperative pancreatic fistulas (9% vs. 1%, p < 0.01), and greater mortality (7% vs. 2%, p < 0.05). Propensity score matched patients with DA had more major complications following PD (32% vs. 12%, p < 0.05). Conclusions: Preoperative biopsy of duodenal adenomas is associated with a high false-negative rate for malignancy, and PD for DA is associated with higher complication rates than PD for PDAC. These results aid discussion among patients and surgeons who are considering observation versus PD for DA, especially in younger patients without biliary obstruction, who are less likely to harbor malignancy.

Background and Objectives: Race/ethnicity and socioeconomic factors are associated with worse cancer outcomes. Our aim was to determine the association of these factors with receipt of surgery and multimodality therapy for cholangiocarcinoma. Methods: Patients with cholangiocarcincoma in the National Cancer Database were identified. Racial/ethnic groups were defined as non-Hispanic White, non-Hispanic Black, Asian, and Hispanic. Socioeconomic factors were insurance status, income, and education. Results: Of 12 095 patients with non-metastatic cholangiocarcinoma, 42% received surgery. Black race was associated with decreased odds of receiving surgery (odds ratio [OR]: 0.66l; P < .001) compared to White patients. Socioeconomic factors accounted for 21% of this disparity. Accounting for socioeconomic and clinicopathologic variables, Black race (OR: 0.73; P < .001), uninsured status (OR: 0.43; P < .001), and Medicaid insurance (OR: 0.63; P < .001) were all associated with decreased receipt of surgery. Of 4808 patients who received surgery, 47% received multimodality therapy. There were no racial/ethnic or socioeconomic differences in receipt of multimodality therapy once patients accessed surgical care. Similar results were seen in patients with advanced disease who received chemotherapy as primary treatment. Conclusion: Racial/ethnic and socioeconomic disparities exist in treatment for cholangiocarcinoma, however only for primary treatment. In patients who received surgery or chemotherapy, there were no disparities in receipt of multimodality therapy. This emphasizes the need to improve initial access to health care for minority and socioeconomical disadvantaged patients.

Background: Esophageal adenocarcinoma (AC) and squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) have distinct outcomes, treatment strategies, and response profiles to therapy. Adenosquamous carcinoma (ASC) is thought to behave more aggressively than each of its counterparts. The aim of this study is to determine if ASC is best managed as AC or SCC. Methods: National Cancer Database (2004-2015) was queried for patients with nonmetastatic esophageal ASC. The analysis was stratified by clinical node-negative (cN0) or clinical node-positive (cN1-3). Treatment was categorized into chemoradiation alone, surgery alone, or preoperative chemoradiation followed by surgery. The primary outcome was 5-year overall survival (OS). Results: Among 352 patients, 43% were cN0 (n = 151), 57% were cN1-3 (n = 201) and 55% had chemoradiation alone (n = 194), 15% surgery alone (n = 53), and 30% preoperative chemoradiation (n = 105). Among patients who had preoperative chemoradiation, 20% had pathologic complete response (n = 17). For either cN0 or cN1-3, Charlson-Deyo Comorbidity Index did not differ among the treatment groups(all p > 0.05). On Kaplan-Meier analysis for cN0, treatment with surgery alone had comparable OS to preoperative chemoradiation (47% vs 34%; P = .5) and each had improved OS compared to chemoradiation alone (30%; P = .02; P = .06). On univariate analysis for cN0, clinical T category was not associated with OS. For cN1-3, however, preoperative chemoradiation was associated with improved OS when compared to chemoradiation alone or surgery alone (27% vs 19% vs 0%; P < .001). This persisted when accounting for age and clinical T category (hazard ratio: 0.45; P < .001). Conclusion: Esophageal ASC behaves more like AC in response to chemoradiation and survival based on treatment modality. A complete response to chemoradiation is only 20% unlike what has been shown for SCC, where chemoradiation is an acceptable definitive therapy. Esophageal ASC should be managed more like AC.

Background: For pancreatic adenocarcinoma (PDAC), no studies have established any association between earlier treatment initiation and long-term outcomes. In addition, an optimal type of initial treatment for the localized disease remains ill-defined. Methods: Patients in the National Cancer Database (2004-2015) with clinical stage I (CS-I) and II (CS-II) PDAC who underwent curative-intent resection were included. Optimal time from diagnosis-to-treatment including neoadjuvant chemotherapy, neoadjuvant chemoradiation, or upfront surgery was assessed. An optimal type of treatment was evaluated. The primary outcome was overall survival (OS). Results: Among 29 167 patients, starting any treatment within 0 to 6 weeks was associated with improved median OS compared with 7 to 12 weeks (21.0 vs 20.1 months; P = .004). This persisted when accounting for sex, race, and Charlson-Deyo score (hazard ratio [HR], 0.94; P = 0.02) and on subset analysis for CS-I (23.5 vs 21.8 months; P = .04) and CS-II (19.4 vs 18.3 months; P = .03). Neoadjuvant chemotherapy was associated with improved OS compared with neoadjuvant chemoradiation (25.6 vs 22.7 months; P <.0001) or US (25.6 vs 20.1 months; P <.0001) even when accounting for sex, race, and Charlson-Deyo score (neoadjuvant chemoradiation: HR, 0.86; P < .001; US: HR, 0.79; P < .001). This improvement persisted in subset analysis with NC compared with neoadjuvant chemoradiation (CS-I: 28.6 vs 25.0 months; CS-II: 25.0 vs 22.9 months; both P < .0001) and to US (CS-I: 28.6 vs 22.9 months; CS-II: 24.7 vs 18.4 months; both P < .0001). On multivariable analysis for each CS-I/CS-II, NC remained associated with 20% improved survival compared with neoadjuvant chemoradiation or upfront surgery. Conclusions: For PDAC, initiation of therapy within 6 weeks from diagnosis is associated with improved survival, with neoadjuvant chemotherapy associated with the best survival compared with neoadjuvant chemoradiation or upfront surgery.

Background: Surgery alone is standard-of-care for stage I gastric adenocarcinoma; however, clinicians can offer preoperative therapy for clinical stage I disease with signet ring cell histology, given its presumed aggressive biology. We aimed to assess the validity of this practice. Methods: The National Cancer Database (2004–2015) was reviewed for patients with clinical stage I signet ring cell gastric adenocarcinoma who underwent treatment with surgery alone, perioperative chemotherapy, neoadjuvant therapy, or adjuvant therapy. Analysis was stratified by preoperative clinical/pathologic stage. Primary outcome was overall survival (OS). Results: Of 1018 patients, median age was 60 years (±14); 53% received surgery alone (n = 542), 5% received perioperative chemotherapy (n = 47), 12% received neoadjuvant therapy (n = 125), and 30% received adjuvant therapy (n = 304). For clinical stage I disease, surgery alone was associated with an improved 5-year OS rate (71%) versus perioperative chemotherapy (58%), neoadjuvant therapy (38%), or adjuvant therapy (52%) [overall p < 0.01]. For pathologic stage I, surgery alone had equivalent or improved survival compared with perioperative, neoadjuvant, and adjuvant therapy (5-year OS: 78% vs. 89% [p = 0.77] vs. 64% [p = 0.04] vs. 84% [p = 0.99]). Adjuvant therapy was associated with improved 5-year OS compared with pretreatment for those patients upstaged (37%) to pathologic stage II/III (55% vs. 36% and 34% vs. 7%; all p < 0.01). Conclusions: This stage-specific study demonstrates improved survival with surgery alone for clinical stage I signet ring cell gastric adenocarcinoma. Despite 37% of clinical stage I patients being upstaged to pathologic stage II/III, adjuvant therapy offers a favorable rescue strategy, with improved outcomes compared with those treated preoperatively. Surgery alone also affords similar or improved survival for pathologic stage I disease versus multimodality therapy. This study challenges the bias to overtreat stage I signet ring cell gastric adenocarcinoma.

Background: For patients with peritoneal carcinomatosis undergoing cytoreductive surgery with heated intraperitoneal chemotherapy (CRS/HIPEC), incomplete cytoreduction (CCR2/3) confers morbidity without survival benefit. The aim of this study is to identify preoperative factors which predict CCR2/3. Methods: All patients who underwent curative-intent CRS/HIPEC of low/high-grade appendiceal, colorectal, or peritoneal mesothelioma cancers in the 12-institution US HIPEC Collaborative from 2000 to 2017 were included (n = 2027). The primary aim is to create an incomplete-cytoreduction risk score (ICRS) to predict CCR2/3 CRS utilizing preoperative data. ICRS was created from a randomly selected cohort of 50% of patients (derivation cohort) and verified on the remaining patients (validation cohort). Results: Within our derivation cohort (n = 998), histology was low-grade appendiceal neoplasms in 30%, high-grade appendiceal tumor in 41%, colorectal tumor in 22%, and peritoneal mesothelioma in 8%. CCR0/1 was achieved in 816 patients and CCR 2/3 in 116 patients. On multivariable analysis, preoperative factors associated with incomplete cytoreduction were male gender [odds ratio (OR) 3.4, p = 0.007], presence of ascites (OR 2.8, p = 0.028), cancer antigen (CA)-125 ≥ 40 U/mL (OR 3.4, p = 0.012), and carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) ≥ 4.2 ng/mL (OR 3.2, p = 0.029). Each preoperative factor was assigned a score of 0 or 1 to form an ICRS from 0 to 4. Scores were grouped as zero (0), low (1–2), or high (3–4). Incidence of CCR2/3 progressively increased by risk group from 1.6% in zero to 13% in low and 39% in high. When ICRS was applied to the validation cohort (n = 1029), this relationship was maintained. Conclusion: The incomplete cytoreduction risk score incorporates preoperative factors to accurately stratify the risk of CCR2/3 resection in CRS/HIPEC. This score should not be used in isolation, however, to exclude patients from surgery.

Background: No guidelines exist for surveillance following cytoreductive surgery with hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (CRS/HIPEC) for appendiceal and colorectal cancer. The primary objective was to define the optimal surveillance frequency after CRS/HIPEC. Methods: The U.S. HIPEC Collaborative database (2000–2017) was reviewed for patients who underwent a CCR0/1 CRS/HIPEC for appendiceal or colorectal cancer. Radiologic surveillance frequency was divided into two categories: low-frequency surveillance (LFS) at q6–12mos or high-frequency surveillance (HFS) at q2–4mos. Primary outcome was overall survival (OS). Results: Among 975 patients, the median age was 55 year, 41% were male: 31% had non-invasive appendiceal (n = 301), 45% invasive appendiceal (n = 435), and 24% colorectal cancer (CRC; n = 239). With a median follow-up time of 25 mos, the median time to recurrence was 12 mos. Despite less surveillance, LFS patients had no decrease in median OS (non-invasive appendiceal: 106 vs. 65 mos, p < 0.01; invasive appendiceal: 120 vs. 73 mos, p = 0.02; colorectal cancer [CRC]: 35 vs. 30 mos, p = 0.8). LFS patients had lower median PCI scores compared with HFS (non-invasive appendiceal: 10 vs. 19; invasive appendiceal: 10 vs. 14; CRC: 8 vs. 11; all p < 0.01). However, on multivariable analysis, accounting for PCI score, LFS was still not associated with decreased OS for any histologic type (non-invasive appendiceal: hazard ratio [HR]: 0.28, p = 0.1; invasive appendiceal: HR: 0.73, p = 0.42; CRC: HR: 1.14, p = 0.59). When estimating annual incident cases of CRS/HIPEC at 375 for non-invasive appendiceal, 375 invasive appendiceal and 4410 colorectal, LFS compared with HFS for the initial two post-operative years would potentially save $13–19 M/year to the U.S. healthcare system. Conclusions: Low-frequency surveillance after CRS/HIPEC for appendiceal or colorectal cancer is not associated with decreased survival, and when considering decreased costs, may optimize resource utilization.