Purpose: Multidisciplinary evaluation (MDE) of hepatocellular cancer (HCC) is the current standard, often provided through a tumor board (TB) forum; this standard is limited by oncology workforce shortages and lack of a TB at every institution. Virtual TBs (VTBs) may help overcome these limitations. Our study aim was to assess the impact of a regional VTB on the MDE process for patients with HCC.Methods: A retrospective cohort study was conducted, including patients with HCC referred to a tertiary cancer center from regional facilities (2009 to 2013). Baseline characteristics and outcomes were compared based on the referral mechanism: VTB versus subspecialty consultation (non-VTB). The primary outcome was comprehensive MDE (all required specialists present and key topics discussed). Secondary outcomes included timeliness of MDE and travel burden to complete MDE. Univariable and multivariable logistic regressions were performed to examine the association of a VTB with comprehensive MDE.Results: A total of 116 patients were included in the study; 48 (41.4%) were evaluated through the VTB. A higher proportion of VTB patients received comprehensive MDE (91.7% v 64.7%; P ϭ .001); the VTB was independently associated with higher odds of accomplishing comprehensive MDE (odds ratio, 6.0; 95% CI, 1.2 to 29.9; P ϭ .02). VTB patients completed MDE significantly faster (median, 23 v 39 days; P Ͻ .001), with lower travel burden (median, 0 v 683 miles traveled; P Ͻ .001). Conclusion:This VTB program positively affected the process of care for patients with HCC by improving the quality and timeliness of the MDE process, while avoiding the burden arising from travel needs. Future studies should focus on implementation of VTB programs on a wider scale.

PES is a common complication after TACE and is associated with a two-fold increased risk of death. Future studies should incorporate PES as a relevant early predictor of OS and examine the biological basis of this association.

No abstract

The development of an HPB-SP led to regionalization of care and improved quality of cancer care and surgical outcomes. Establishment of regional programs within the VA system can help improve the quality of care for patients presenting with complex cancers requiring subspecialized care.

No abstract

No abstract

Objective Although rare, thymic neuroendocrine tumors (TNET) and thymic carcinoma (TC) are the most common thymic nonthymomatous malignancies; their survival outcomes have not been thoroughly compared. We analyzed the clinical, treatment, and survival characteristics of TNET and TC. Methods We retrospectively identified patients with a histologic diagnosis of TNET or TC in the National Cancer Database (2004 to 2015). Exclusion criteria were age <18 years and unstaged tumors. Descriptive statistics, survival analysis, and multivariable Cox regression analyses were used in elucidating associations. Results One thousand four hundred eighty-nine patients were included (TNET: 19.8%). Patients with TNET were significantly younger (57 vs 62.5 years), more likely to be male (70.5% vs 60.0%), and have localized tumors (45.4% vs 32.3%). Patients with TC more frequently underwent chemotherapy (56.1% vs 34.9%), radiation (56.9% vs 39.3%), and trimodality therapy (21.3% vs 11.5%), while resection rates were similar (55.3% vs 58.3%). The 5-year survival was 62% for TNET and 52% for TC, but comparable following multivariable adjustment. Age, stage, and Charlson–Deyo score were negative predictors of survival, while surgery and trimodality therapy were positive predictors. On subanalysis, adjuvant radiation therapy (ART) improved the survival of margin-positive tumors and was an independent predictor of survival for both tumor types (hazard ratio = 0.5). Conclusions Our analysis of the largest series of TNET and TC showed a survival rate surpassing 50% at 5 years. These outcomes seem to be influenced by surgical resection and ART. Standardized staging and surgical protocols including lymph node sampling are still warranted to better elucidate the treatment algorithm of these tumors.

SUMMARY The optimal treatment of esophageal cancer in octogenarians is controversial. While the safety of esophagectomy has been demonstrated in elderly patients, surgery and multimodality therapy are still offered to a select group. Additionally, the long-term outcomes in octogenarians have not been thoroughly compared to those in younger patients. We sought to compare the outcomes of esophageal cancer treatment between octogenarians and non-octogenarians in the National Cancer Database (2004–2014). The major endpoints were early postoperative mortality and long-term survival. A total of 107,921 patients were identified [octogenarian—16,388 (15.2%)]. Compared to non-octogenarians, octogenarians were more likely to be female, of higher socioeconomic status, and had more Charlson comorbidities (p &lt; 0.001 for all). Octogenarians were significantly less likely to undergo esophagectomy (11.5% vs. 33.3%; p &lt; 0.001) and multimodality therapy (2.0% vs. 18.5%; p &lt; 0.001), a trend that persisted following stratification by tumor stage and Charlson comorbidities. Both 30-day and 90-day mortality were higher in the octogenarian group, even after multivariable adjustment (p ≤ 0.001 for both). Octogenarians who underwent multimodality therapy had worse long-term survival when compared to younger patients, except for those with stage III tumors and no comorbidities (HR: 1.29; p = 0.153). Within the octogenarian group, postoperative mortality was lower in academic centers, and the long-term survival was similar between multimodality treatment and surgery alone (HR: 0.96; p = 0.62). In conclusion, octogenarians are less likely to be offered treatment irrespective of tumor stage or comorbidities. Although octogenarians have higher early mortality and poorer overall survival compared to younger patients, outcomes may be improved when treatment is performed at academic centers. Multimodality treatment did not seem to confer a survival advantage compared to surgery alone in octogenarians, and more prospective studies are necessary to better elucidate the optimal treatment in this patient population.