Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (ICC) are the most frequently occurring types of primary liver cancer and together are among the most common incident cancers worldwide. There are a number of modifiable and nonmodifiable HCC and ICC risk factors that have been reported. A review of the existing literature the epidemiology and risk factors for HCC and ICC was performed. There are a number of major infectious, lifestyle, metabolic, and heritable risk factors for both HCC and ICC. Some of these risk factors are either potentially preventable (eg, alcohol and tobacco use) or are currently treatable (eg hepatitis infection). In most cases, the molecular pathway or mechanism by which these etiologic factors cause primary liver cancer has not been well delineated. However, in nearly all cases, it is believed that a given risk factor causes liver injury and inflammation which results in chronic liver disease. Given the rising prevalence of several common HCC and ICC risk factors in the western world, the best opportunities for improving the care of these patients are either through the prevention of modifiable risk factors that are associated with the development of chronic liver disease or the identification of at risk patients, ensuring they are appropriately screened for the development of primary liver cancer, and initiating treatment early.

No abstract

IMPORTANCE Patients with frailty have higher risk for postoperative mortality and complications; however, most research has focused on small groups of high-risk procedures. The associations among frailty, operative stress, and mortality are poorly understood.OBJECTIVE To assess the association between frailty and mortality at varying levels of operative stress as measured by the Operative Stress Score, a novel measure created for this study. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTSThis retrospective cohort study included veterans in the Veterans Administration Surgical Quality Improvement Program from April 1, 2010, through March 31, 2014, who underwent a noncardiac surgical procedure at Veterans Health Administration Hospitals and had information available on vital status (whether the patient was alive or deceased) at 1 year postoperatively. A Delphi consensus method was used to stratify surgical procedures into 5 categories of physiologic stress. EXPOSURES Frailty as measured by the Risk Analysis Index and operative stress as measured by the Operative Stress Score. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES Postoperative mortality at 30, 90, and 180 days. RESULTS Of 432 828 unique patients (401 453 males [92.8%]; mean (SD) age, 61.0 [12.9] years), 36 579 (8.5%) were frail and 9113 (2.1%) were very frail. The 30-day mortality rate among patients who were frail and underwent the lowest-stress surgical procedures (eg, cystoscopy) was 1.55% (95% CI, 1.20%-1.97%) and among patients with frailty who underwent the moderate-stress surgical procedures (eg, laparoscopic cholecystectomy) was 5.13% (95% CI, 4.79%-5.48%); these rates exceeded the 1% mortality rate often used to define high-risk surgery. Among patients who were very frail, 30-day mortality rates were higher after the lowest-stress surgical procedures (10.34%; 95% CI, 7.73%-13.48%) and after the moderate-stress surgical procedures (18.74%; 95% CI, 17.72%-19.80%). For patients who were frail and very frail, mortality continued to increase at 90 and 180 days, reaching 43.00% (95% CI, 41.69%-44.32%) for very frail patients at 180 days after moderate-stress surgical procedures. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCEWe developed a novel operative stress score to quantify physiologic stress for surgical procedures. Patients who were frail and very frail had high rates of postoperative mortality across all levels of the Operative Stress Score. These findings suggest that frailty screening should be applied universally because low-and moderate-stress procedures may be high risk among patients who are frail.

Objective and Background: The Risk Analysis Index (RAI) predicts 30-, 180-, and 365-day mortality based on variables constitutive of frailty. Initially validated, in a single-center Veteran hospital, we sought to improve model performance by recalibrating the RAI in a large, veteran surgical registry, and to externally validate it in both a national surgical registry and a cohort of surgical patients for whom RAI was measured prospectively before surgery. Methods: The RAI was recalibrated among development and confirmation samples within the Veterans Affairs Surgical Quality Improvement Program (VASQIP; 2010–2014; N = 480,731) including major, elective noncardiac surgery patients to create the revised RAI (RAI-rev), comparing discrimination and calibration. The model was tested externally in the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program dataset (NSQIP; 2005–2014; N = 1,391,785), and in a prospectively collected cohort from the Nebraska Western Iowa Health Care System VA (NWIHCS; N = 6,856). Results: Recalibrating the RAI significantly improved discrimination for 30-day [c = 0.84–0.86], 180-day [c = 0.81–0.84], and 365-day mortality [c = 0.78–0.82] (P < 0.001 for all) in VASQIP. The RAI-rev also had markedly better calibration (median absolute difference between observed and predicted 180-day mortality: decreased from 8.45% to 1.23%). RAI-rev was highly predictive of 30-day mortality (c = 0.87) in external validation with excellent calibration (median absolute difference between observed and predicted 30-day mortality: 0.6%). The discrimination was highly robust in men (c = 0.85) and women (c = 0.89). Discrimination also improved in the prospectively measured cohort from NWIHCS for 180-day mortality [c = 0.77 to 0.80] (P < 0.001). Conclusions: The RAI-rev has improved discrimination and calibration as a frailty-screening tool in surgical patients. It has robust external validity in men and women across a wide range of surgical settings and available for immediate implementation for risk assessment and counseling in preoperative patients.

Pancreatic cancer is an aggressive malignancy with a poor prognosis. The disease and its treatment can cause significant nutritional impairments that often adversely impact patient quality of life (QOL). The pancreas has both exocrine and endocrine functions and, in the setting of cancer, both systems may be affected. Pancreatic exocrine insufficiency (PEI) manifests as weight loss and steatorrhea, while endocrine insufficiency may result in diabetes mellitus. Surgical resection, a central component of pancreatic cancer treatment, may induce or exacerbate these dysfunctions. Nutritional and metabolic dysfunctions in patients with pancreatic cancer lack characterization, and few guidelines exist for nutritional support in patients after surgical resection. We reviewed publications from the past two decades (1995–2016) addressing the nutritional and metabolic status of patients with pancreatic cancer, grouping them into status at the time of diagnosis, status at the time of resection, and status of nutritional support throughout the diagnosis and treatment of pancreatic cancer. Here, we summarize the results of these investigations and evaluate the effectiveness of various types of nutritional support in patients after pancreatectomy for pancreatic adenocarcinoma (PDAC). We outline the following conservative perioperative strategies to optimize patient outcomes and guide the care of these patients: (1) patients with albumin < 2.5 mg/dL or weight loss > 10% should postpone surgery and begin aggressive nutrition supplementation; (2) patients with albumin < 3 mg/dL or weight loss between 5% and 10% should have nutrition supplementation prior to surgery; (3) enteral nutrition (EN) should be preferred as a nutritional intervention over total parenteral nutrition (TPN) postoperatively; and, (4) a multidisciplinary approach should be used to allow for early detection of symptoms of endocrine and exocrine pancreatic insufficiency alongside implementation of appropriate treatment to improve the patient’s quality of life.

Among older adults, the risk of complications and early death after commonly performed abdominal procedures is greater than previously reported. These rates should be considered in ongoing quality improvement initiatives and may be helpful when counseling patients regarding abdominal operations.

Purpose Health care access and advanced cancer stage are associated with oncologic outcomes for numerous common cancers. However, the impact of patient travel distance to health care on stage at diagnosis has not been well characterized. Methods This study used a historical cohort of patients with colon cancer in the National Cancer Data Base from 2003 through 2010. The primary outcome, stage at diagnosis, was evaluated using hierarchical regression modeling. A secondary outcome was time to receipt of initial therapy that was evaluated using Cox shared frailty modeling. Results Among 296,474 patients with colon cancer (mean age, 68 ± 13.6 years; 47.6% male; 78.5% white), 3.9% traveled ≥ 50 miles to the diagnosing facility. Fewer black patients, patients with higher income, and patients with lower education traveled longer distances (trend test P < .001 for all). Patients traveling ≥ 50 miles were more likely to present with metastatic disease compared with those traveling less than 12.5 miles (odds ratio [OR], 1.18; 95% CI, 1.12 to 1.24) or 12.5 to 49.9 miles (OR, 1.18; 95% CI, 1.12 to 1.24). In sensitivity analyses, the association was robust to alternate methods of modeling travel distance (quintile stratification or continuous). Travel distance ≥ 50 miles was also associated with a higher likelihood of earlier initiation of therapy compared with travel distance of less than 12.5 miles (hazard ratio [HR], 1.10; 95% CI, 1.08 to 1.13) or 12.5 to 49.9 miles (HR, 1.11; 95% CI, 1.08 to 1.13). Conclusion Advanced colon cancer stage at diagnosis is associated with patient travel distance to health care, which may be a barrier to early cancer screening. Health care reform efforts designed to address only insurance coverage may not mitigate disparities based on difficulties accessing cancer care.

Frailty has a dose-response association with complications and FTR, which is apparent after low-risk and high-risk inpatient surgery. Systematic assessment of frailty in preoperative patients may help refine estimates of surgical risk that could identify patients who might benefit from perioperative interventions designed to enhance physiologic reserve and potentially mitigate aspects of procedural risk, and would provide a framework for shared decision-making regarding the value of a given surgical procedure.