No abstract

care is crucial to high-quality surgical care. The clinical expertise and experience of anesthesiologists may decrease the risk of adverse outcomes.OBJECTIVE To examine the association between anesthesiologist volume and short-term postoperative outcomes for complex gastrointestinal (GI) cancer surgery. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTSThis population-based cohort study used administrative health care data sets from various data sources in Ontario, Canada. Adult patients who underwent esophagectomy, pancreatectomy, or hepatectomy for GI cancer from January 1, 2007, to December 31, 2018, were eligible. Patients with an invalid identification number, a duplicate surgery record, and missing primary anesthesiologist information were excluded.EXPOSURES Primary anesthesiologist volume was defined as the annual number of procedures of interest (esophagectomy, pancreatectomy, and hepatectomy) supported by that anesthesiologist in the 2 years before the index surgery. Volume was dichotomized into low-volume and high-volume categories, with 75th percentile or 6 or more procedures per year selected as the cutoff point. MAIN OUTCOME AND MEASURESThe primary outcome was a composite of 90-day major morbidity (with a Clavien-Dindo classification grade 3-5) and readmission. Secondary outcomes were individual components of the primary outcome. The association between exposure and outcomes was examined using multivariable logistic regression models, accounting for potential confounders. RESULTSOf the 8096 patients included, 5369 were men (66.3%) and the median (interquartile range [IQR]) age was 65 (57-72) years. Operations were supported by 842 anesthesiologists and performed by 186 surgeons, and the median (IQR) anesthesiologist volume was 3 (1.5-6) procedures per year. A total of 2166 patients (26.7%) received care from high-volume anesthesiologists. Primary outcome occurred in 36.3% of patients in the high-volume group and 45.7% of patients in the low-volume group. After adjustment, care by high-volume anesthesiologists was independently associated with lower odds of the primary outcome (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.85; 95% CI, 0.76-0.94), major morbidity (aOR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.75-0.91), unplanned intensive care unit admission (aOR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.76-0.94), but not readmission (aOR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.73-1.05) or mortality (aOR, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.84-1.31). E-values analysis indicated that an unmeasured variable would unlikely substantively change the observed risk estimates.CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE This study found that, among adults who underwent complex gastrointestinal cancer surgery, those who received care from high-volume anesthesiologists had a lower risk of adverse postoperative outcomes compared with those who received care from low-volume anesthesiologists. These findings support organizing perioperative care to increase anesthesiologist volume to optimize patient outcomes.

GroupIMPORTANCE Functional outcomes are central to cancer care decision-making by older adults.OBJECTIVE To assess the long-term functional outcomes of older adults after a resection for cancer using time at home as the measure. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTSThis population-based cohort study was conducted in Ontario, Canada, using the administrative databases stored at ICES (formerly the Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences). The analysis included adults 70 years or older with a new diagnosis of cancer between January 1, 2007, and December 31, 2017, who underwent a resection 90 days to 180 days after the diagnosis. Patients were followed up until and censored at the date of death, date of last contact, or December 31, 2018. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURESThe main outcome was time at home, dichotomized as high time at home (defined as Յ14 institution days annually) and low time at home (defined as >14 institution days) during the 5 years after surgical cancer treatment. Time-to-event analyses with Kaplan-Meier methods and multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression models were used.RESULTS A total of 82 037 patients were included, with a median (interquartile range) follow-up of 46 (23-80) months. Of these patients, 52 119 were women (63.5%) and the mean (SD) age was 77.5 (5.7) years. The median (interquartile range) number of days at home per days alive per patient was high, at 0.98 (0.94-0.99) in postoperative year 1, 0.99 (0.97-1.00) in year 2, 0.99 (0.96-1.00) in year 3, 0.99 (0.96-1.00) in year 4, and 0.99 (0.96-1.00) in year 5. The probability of high time at home was 70.3% (95% CI, 70.0%-70.6%) at postoperative year 1 and 53.2% (95% CI, 52.8%-53.5%) at postoperative year 5. Advancing age (Ն85 years: hazard ratio [HR], 2.11; 95% CI, 2.04-2.18); preoperative frailty (

Background One of the most common psychological morbidities of cancer is depression. Routine depression symptoms screening (DSS) is recommended, but its ability to lead to psychosocial interventions in clinical practice is limited. We examined the use of and factors associated with psychosocial interventions for positive DSS following cancer diagnosis. Materials and Methods We conducted a population‐based cohort study of patients with diagnoses from 2010 to 2017 who reported ≥1 patient‐reported Edmonton Symptom Assessment System (ESAS) score. Positive DSS was defined as ESAS ≥2 out of 10 for the depression item within 6 months of diagnosis. Outcomes were psychosocial interventions around the time of positive DSS: palliative care assessment, psychiatry/psychology assessment, social work referral, and antidepressant therapy (in patients ≥65 years of age with universal drug coverage). We examined reduction in depression symptom score (≥1 point) following intervention. Modified Poisson regression examined factors associated with interventions. Results Of 142,270 patients, 65,424 (46.0%) reported positive DSS at a median of 66 days (interquartile range: 34–105) after diagnosis. Of those with depression symptoms, 17.1% received palliative assessment, 1.7% psychiatry/psychology assessment, 8.4% social work referral, and 4.3% antidepressant therapy. Depression symptom score decreased in 67.2% who received palliative assessment, 63.7% with psychiatry/psychology assessment, 67.3% with social work referral, and 71.4% with antidepressant therapy. On multivariable analysis, patients with older age, rural residence, lowest income quintile, and genitourinary or oropharyngeal cancer were more likely to not receive intervention other than palliative care. Conclusion The proportion of patients reporting positive DSS after cancer diagnosis receiving psychosocial intervention is low. We identified patients vulnerable to not receiving interventions, who may benefit from additional support. These data represent a call to action to modify practice and optimize the usefulness of systematic symptom screening. Implications for Practice Patient‐reported depression symptoms screening should be followed by targeted interventions to improve symptoms and patient‐centered management.

IMPORTANCE Psychological distress is a key component of patient-centered cancer care. While a greater risk of suicide among patients with cancer has been reported, more frequent consequences of distress, including nonfatal self-injury (NFSI), remain unknown. OBJECTIVE To examine the risk of NFSI after a cancer diagnosis. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS This population-based retrospective cohort study used linked administrative databases to identify adults diagnosed with cancer between 2007 and 2019 in Ontario, Canada. EXPOSURES Demographic and clinical factors. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURESCumulative incidence of NFSI, defined as emergency department presentation of self-injury, was computed, accounting for the competing risk of death from all causes. Factors associated with NFSI were assessed using multivariable Fine and Gray models. RESULTSIn total, 806 910 patients met inclusion criteria. The mean (SD) age was 65.7 (14.3) years, and 405 161 patients (50.2%) were men. Overall, 2482 (0.3%) had NFSI and 182 (<0.1%) died by suicide. The 5-year cumulative incidence of NFSI was 0.27% (95% CI, 0.25%-0.28%). After adjusting for key confounders, prior severe psychiatric illness, whether requiring inpatient care (subdistribution hazard ratio [sHR], 12.6; 95% CI, 10.5-15.2) or outpatient care (sHR, 7.5; 95% CI, 6.5-8.8), and prior self-injury (sHR, 6.6; 95% CI, 5.5-8.0) were associated with increased risk of NFSI.Young adults (age 18-39 years) had the highest NFSI rates relative to individuals aged 70 years or older (sHR, 5.4; 95% CI, 4.5-6.5). The magnitude of association between prior inpatient psychiatric illness and NFSI was greatest for young adults (sHR, 17.6; 95% CI, 12.0-25.8). Certain cancer subsites were also associated with increased risk, including head and neck cancer (sHR, 1.5; 95% CI, 1.2-1.9). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCEIn this study, patients with cancer had a higher incidence of NFSI than suicide after diagnosis. Younger age, history of severe psychiatric illness, and prior self-injury were independently associated with risk of NFSI. These exposures appeared to act synergistically, placing young adults with a prior mental health history at the greatest risk of NFSI. These factors should be used to identify at-risk patients.

Background: Little is known about how the geographic distribution of cancer services may influence disparities in outcomes for noncurable pancreatic adenocarcinoma. We therefore examined the geographic distribution of outcomes for this disease in relation to distance to cancer centers. Methods: We conducted a retrospective population-based analysis of adults in Ontario, Canada, diagnosed with noncurable pancreatic adenocarcinoma from 2004 through 2017 using linked administrative healthcare datasets. The exposure was distance from place of residence to the nearest cancer center providing medical oncology assessment and systemic therapy. Outcomes were medical oncology consultation, receipt of cancer-directed therapy, and overall survival. We examined the relationship between distance and outcomes using adjusted multivariable regression models. Results: Of 15,970 patients surviving a median of 3.3 months, 65.6% consulted medical oncology and 38.5% received systemic therapy. Regions with comparable outcomes were clustered throughout Ontario. Mapping revealed regional discordances between outcomes. Increasing distance (reference, ≤10 km) was independently associated with lower likelihood of medical oncology consultation (relative risks [95% CI] for 11–50, 51–100, and ≥101 km were 0.90 [0.83–0.98], 0.78 [0.62–0.99], and 0.77 [0.55–1.08], respectively) and worse survival (hazard ratios [95% CI] for 11–50, 51–100, and ≥101 km were 1.08 [1.04–1.12], 1.17 [1.10–1.25], and 1.10 [1.02–1.18], respectively), but not with likelihood of receiving therapy. Receipt of therapy seems less sensitive to distance, suggesting that distance limits entry into the cancer care system via oncology consultation. Regional outcome discordances suggest inefficiencies within and protective factors outside of the cancer care system. Conclusions: These findings provide a basis for clinicians to optimize their practices for patients with noncurable pancreatic adenocarcinoma, for future studies investigating geographic barriers to care, and for regional interventions to improve access.

Cancer (RESTORE-Cancer) GroupIMPORTANCE Cancer care has inherent complexities in older adults, including balancing risks of cancer and noncancer death. A poor understanding of cause-specific outcomes may lead to overtreatment and undertreatment.OBJECTIVE To examine all-cause and cancer-specific death throughout 5 years for older adults after cancer resection. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTSThis population-based cohort study was conducted in Ontario, Canada, using the administrative databases stored at ICES (formerly the Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences). All adults 70 years or older who underwent resection for a new diagnosis of cancer between January 1, 2007, and December 31, 2017, were included. Patients were followed up until death or censored at date of last contact of December 31, 2018. EXPOSURES Cancer resection.MAIN OUTCOME AND MEASURES Using a competing risks approach, the cumulative incidence of cancer and noncancer death was estimated and stratified by important prognostic factors. Multivariable subdistribution hazard models were fit to explore prognostic factors. RESULTSOf 82 037 older adults who underwent surgery (all older than 70 years; 52 119 [63.5%] female), 16 900 of 34 044 deaths (49.6%) were cancer related at a median (interquartile range) follow-up of 46 (23-80) months. At 5 years, estimated cumulative incidence of cancer death (20.7%; 95% CI, 20.4%-21.0%) exceeded noncancer death (16.5%; 95% CI, 16.2%-16.8%) among all patients. However, noncancer deaths exceeded cancer deaths starting at 3 years after surgery in breast, prostate, and melanoma skin cancers, patients older than 85 years, and those with frailty. Cancer type, advancing age, and frailty were independently associated with cause-specific death.CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE At the population level, the relative burden of cancer deaths exceeds noncancer deaths for older adults selected for surgery. No subgroup had a higher burden of noncancer death early after surgery, even in more vulnerable patients. This cause-specific overall prognosis information should be used for patient counseling, to assess patterns of over-or undertreatment in older adults with cancer at the system level, and to guide targets for system-level improvements to refine selection criteria and perioperative care pathways for older adults with cancer.

Background While surgical care by high-volume providers for esophago-gastric cancer (EGC) yields better outcomes, volume-outcome relationships are unknown for systemic therapy. We examined receipt of therapy and outcomes in the non-curative management of EGC based on medical oncology provider volume. Methods We conducted a population based retrospective cohort study of non-curative EGC over 2005-2017 by linking administrative healthcare datasets. The volume of new EGC consultations per medical oncology provider per year was calculated and divided into quintiles. High-volume (HV) medical oncologists were defined as the 4-5th quintiles. Outcomes were receipt of chemotherapy and overall survival (OS). Multivariate logistic and Cox-proportional hazards regressions examined the association between management by HV medical oncologist, receipt of systemic therapy, and OS. Results 7011 EGC patients with non-curative management consulted with medical oncology. 1-year OS was superior for HV medical oncologists (> 11 patients/year), with 28.4% (95% CI 26.7-30.2%) compared to 25.1% (95% CI 23.8-26.3%) for low volume (p < 0.001). After adjusting for age, sex, comorbidity burden, rurality, income quintile, and diagnosis year, HV medical oncologist was independently associated with higher odds of receiving chemotherapy (OR 1.13, 95% CI 1.01-1.26), and independently associated with superior OS (HR 0.89, 95% CI 0.84-0.93). Conclusions Medical oncology provider volume was associated with variation in non-curative management and outcomes of EGC. Care by an HV medical oncologist was independently associated with higher odds of receiving chemotherapy and superior OS, after adjusting for case mix. This information is important to inform disease care pathways and care organization; an increase in the number of HV medical oncologists may reduce variation and improve outcomes.