Richard Mark Kirkner

CHICAGO – Investigators have identified four genes that are overexpressed in primary melanoma, including one, CXCL1, that holds promise as a strong predictor of future metastatic disease, according to study results presented at the Society of Surgical Oncology Annual Cancer Symposium.

The study implicated four genes strongly expressed in primary melanoma tumors of patients who develop distant metastases – CXCL1, CXCL2, CBL, and CD276 – said Jennifer Erdrich, MD, MPH, of Cedars Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles. However, CXCL1 stood out. “CXCL1 overexpression is an independent predictor of developing metastatic disease. Patients with CXCL1 overexpression in the primary tumor in our study had decreased overall 5-year survival.” CXCL1 may be a useful predictive marker in primary melanoma and a potential target for immunotherapy, she said.

genes_photo_web.jpg

SOURCE: Erdrich J et al. SSO 2018, Abstract 82.

CHICAGO – Investigators have identified four genes that are overexpressed in primary melanoma, including one, CXCL1, that holds promise as a strong predictor of future metastatic disease, according to study results presented at the Society of Surgical Oncology Annual Cancer Symposium.

The study implicated four genes strongly expressed in primary melanoma tumors of patients who develop distant metastases – CXCL1, CXCL2, CBL, and CD276 – said Jennifer Erdrich, MD, MPH, of Cedars Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles. However, CXCL1 stood out. “CXCL1 overexpression is an independent predictor of developing metastatic disease. Patients with CXCL1 overexpression in the primary tumor in our study had decreased overall 5-year survival.” CXCL1 may be a useful predictive marker in primary melanoma and a potential target for immunotherapy, she said.

genes_photo_web.jpg

SOURCE: Erdrich J et al. SSO 2018, Abstract 82.

CHICAGO – Investigators have identified four genes that are overexpressed in primary melanoma, including one, CXCL1, that holds promise as a strong predictor of future metastatic disease, according to study results presented at the Society of Surgical Oncology Annual Cancer Symposium.

The study implicated four genes strongly expressed in primary melanoma tumors of patients who develop distant metastases – CXCL1, CXCL2, CBL, and CD276 – said Jennifer Erdrich, MD, MPH, of Cedars Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles. However, CXCL1 stood out. “CXCL1 overexpression is an independent predictor of developing metastatic disease. Patients with CXCL1 overexpression in the primary tumor in our study had decreased overall 5-year survival.” CXCL1 may be a useful predictive marker in primary melanoma and a potential target for immunotherapy, she said.

genes_photo_web.jpg

SOURCE: Erdrich J et al. SSO 2018, Abstract 82.

CHICAGO – Extracapsular extension, or extracapsular spread (ECS), has been recognized as a risk factor in melanoma patients with macrometastatic (N+) disease, but a study from the United Kingdom has found it may also be an important indicator of progression-free and overall survival in patients who have sentinel node positive (SLN+) micrometastatic disease, a researcher reported at the Society of Surgical Oncology Annual Cancer Symposium.

“There is limited published data on ECS in micrometastatic disease, although there is progression-free survival data published in the literature,” Michelle Lo, MBCHB, MRCS, of Norfolk and Norwich University Hospitals, in Norwich, England, said in presenting the results. “The goal of the study was to determine the incidence of ECS in the micrometastatic group and to determine the prognostic significance of this.”

The study found that the incidence of ECS in the N+ group was significantly higher than the SLN+ group, 52.4% vs. 16.2% (P less than .0001). ECS proved to be a significant prognostic indicator of disease-specific survival and overall survival for both N+ and SLN+ disease. “There was no statistical difference in Breslow thickness between the two groups regardless of ECS,” she said.

Both the N+ and SLN+ groups with ECS had more lymph nodes than the ECS-absent subgroups, Dr. Lo said. However, in the ECS-absent subgroups, N+ patients had twice the number of lymph nodes than SLN+ patients. “This would suggest that ECS is a high-risk phenotype from the outset of metastases rather than something that’s developed over time,” she said. “Our data is in line with international staging data.”

SOURCE: Lo M, et al. SSO 2018 Abstract 70.

CHICAGO – Extracapsular extension, or extracapsular spread (ECS), has been recognized as a risk factor in melanoma patients with macrometastatic (N+) disease, but a study from the United Kingdom has found it may also be an important indicator of progression-free and overall survival in patients who have sentinel node positive (SLN+) micrometastatic disease, a researcher reported at the Society of Surgical Oncology Annual Cancer Symposium.

“There is limited published data on ECS in micrometastatic disease, although there is progression-free survival data published in the literature,” Michelle Lo, MBCHB, MRCS, of Norfolk and Norwich University Hospitals, in Norwich, England, said in presenting the results. “The goal of the study was to determine the incidence of ECS in the micrometastatic group and to determine the prognostic significance of this.”

The study found that the incidence of ECS in the N+ group was significantly higher than the SLN+ group, 52.4% vs. 16.2% (P less than .0001). ECS proved to be a significant prognostic indicator of disease-specific survival and overall survival for both N+ and SLN+ disease. “There was no statistical difference in Breslow thickness between the two groups regardless of ECS,” she said.

Both the N+ and SLN+ groups with ECS had more lymph nodes than the ECS-absent subgroups, Dr. Lo said. However, in the ECS-absent subgroups, N+ patients had twice the number of lymph nodes than SLN+ patients. “This would suggest that ECS is a high-risk phenotype from the outset of metastases rather than something that’s developed over time,” she said. “Our data is in line with international staging data.”

SOURCE: Lo M, et al. SSO 2018 Abstract 70.

CHICAGO – Extracapsular extension, or extracapsular spread (ECS), has been recognized as a risk factor in melanoma patients with macrometastatic (N+) disease, but a study from the United Kingdom has found it may also be an important indicator of progression-free and overall survival in patients who have sentinel node positive (SLN+) micrometastatic disease, a researcher reported at the Society of Surgical Oncology Annual Cancer Symposium.

“There is limited published data on ECS in micrometastatic disease, although there is progression-free survival data published in the literature,” Michelle Lo, MBCHB, MRCS, of Norfolk and Norwich University Hospitals, in Norwich, England, said in presenting the results. “The goal of the study was to determine the incidence of ECS in the micrometastatic group and to determine the prognostic significance of this.”

The study found that the incidence of ECS in the N+ group was significantly higher than the SLN+ group, 52.4% vs. 16.2% (P less than .0001). ECS proved to be a significant prognostic indicator of disease-specific survival and overall survival for both N+ and SLN+ disease. “There was no statistical difference in Breslow thickness between the two groups regardless of ECS,” she said.

Both the N+ and SLN+ groups with ECS had more lymph nodes than the ECS-absent subgroups, Dr. Lo said. However, in the ECS-absent subgroups, N+ patients had twice the number of lymph nodes than SLN+ patients. “This would suggest that ECS is a high-risk phenotype from the outset of metastases rather than something that’s developed over time,” she said. “Our data is in line with international staging data.”

SOURCE: Lo M, et al. SSO 2018 Abstract 70.

JACKSONVILLE, FLA. – Post-hospital care after major surgery is a significant driver of overall surgery-related spending, and hospitals are focused on reducing this spending as payers move away from the fee-for-service model.

Post-acute care following complications after major surgery can add from $1,700 to more than $4,000 to the patient’s bill, with a trend toward utilizing more expensive inpatient post-acute care and less outpatient care, according to an analysis of more than 700,000 Medicare procedures presented at the Association for Academic Surgery/Society of University Surgeons Academic Surgical Congress.

Kanters_Arielle_E_MICH_web.jpg

Hospitals’ efforts to reduce post-acute care spending must focus on preventing complications. “Thus, quality improvement efforts that reduce postoperative complications will be a key component of success in emerging payment reform,” Dr. Kanters noted

Session moderator Courtney Balentine, MD, of the University of Alabama at Birmingham, asked Dr. Kanters whether the research considered the incentives hospital systems have for referring patients to their own post-acute care facilities. “Post-acute care association with a single hospital has been documented as a likely incentive for discharge to a non-home destination,” Dr. Kanters replied, which leads to higher utilization of “certain” post-acute care facilities and higher costs. However, she said, this study’s dataset could not parse out that trend. “That’s certainly something that needs to be investigated,” she said.

Dr. Kanters and her coauthors had no financial relationships to disclose.

Source: Kanters AE. Annual Academic Surgical Congress 2018.

JACKSONVILLE, FLA. – Post-hospital care after major surgery is a significant driver of overall surgery-related spending, and hospitals are focused on reducing this spending as payers move away from the fee-for-service model.

Post-acute care following complications after major surgery can add from $1,700 to more than $4,000 to the patient’s bill, with a trend toward utilizing more expensive inpatient post-acute care and less outpatient care, according to an analysis of more than 700,000 Medicare procedures presented at the Association for Academic Surgery/Society of University Surgeons Academic Surgical Congress.

Kanters_Arielle_E_MICH_web.jpg

Hospitals’ efforts to reduce post-acute care spending must focus on preventing complications. “Thus, quality improvement efforts that reduce postoperative complications will be a key component of success in emerging payment reform,” Dr. Kanters noted

Session moderator Courtney Balentine, MD, of the University of Alabama at Birmingham, asked Dr. Kanters whether the research considered the incentives hospital systems have for referring patients to their own post-acute care facilities. “Post-acute care association with a single hospital has been documented as a likely incentive for discharge to a non-home destination,” Dr. Kanters replied, which leads to higher utilization of “certain” post-acute care facilities and higher costs. However, she said, this study’s dataset could not parse out that trend. “That’s certainly something that needs to be investigated,” she said.

Dr. Kanters and her coauthors had no financial relationships to disclose.

Source: Kanters AE. Annual Academic Surgical Congress 2018.

JACKSONVILLE, FLA. – Post-hospital care after major surgery is a significant driver of overall surgery-related spending, and hospitals are focused on reducing this spending as payers move away from the fee-for-service model.

Post-acute care following complications after major surgery can add from $1,700 to more than $4,000 to the patient’s bill, with a trend toward utilizing more expensive inpatient post-acute care and less outpatient care, according to an analysis of more than 700,000 Medicare procedures presented at the Association for Academic Surgery/Society of University Surgeons Academic Surgical Congress.

Kanters_Arielle_E_MICH_web.jpg

Hospitals’ efforts to reduce post-acute care spending must focus on preventing complications. “Thus, quality improvement efforts that reduce postoperative complications will be a key component of success in emerging payment reform,” Dr. Kanters noted

Session moderator Courtney Balentine, MD, of the University of Alabama at Birmingham, asked Dr. Kanters whether the research considered the incentives hospital systems have for referring patients to their own post-acute care facilities. “Post-acute care association with a single hospital has been documented as a likely incentive for discharge to a non-home destination,” Dr. Kanters replied, which leads to higher utilization of “certain” post-acute care facilities and higher costs. However, she said, this study’s dataset could not parse out that trend. “That’s certainly something that needs to be investigated,” she said.

Dr. Kanters and her coauthors had no financial relationships to disclose.

Source: Kanters AE. Annual Academic Surgical Congress 2018.

CHICAGO – As Medicare transitions to a value-based model that uses bundled payments, oncologic surgeons and medical institutions may want to take a close look at enhanced recovery pathways and more minimally invasive surgery for colectomy in both benign and malignant disease to close potential gaps in reimbursement and outcomes, according to a retrospective study of 4-year Medicare data presented at the Society of Surgical Oncology Annual Cancer Symposium here.

Hughes_Byron_D_TEX_web.jpg

• DRG poorly differentiates between benign and malignant disease. This problem is evidenced by the higher cost for the index admission in benign disease. “Whereas in malignant disease, there is a greater unrecognized cost-shifting to post-acute care services which are not addressed by the DRG system,” he said.
• The dominance of open colectomy where MIS could reduce episode costs. The study cited research that reported the advantages of MIS include lower episode costs in both younger and older patients, by $1,466 and $632, respectively; shorter hospital stays by 1.46 days; 20% lower 30-day readmissions rates; and lower rates of post-acute care services (J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A. 2017 Dec 13. doi: 10.1089/lap.2017.0521)
• Potential for DRG migration from code 331 (benign disease) to 330 (colon cancer but not with metastasis). Dr. Hughes and his coauthors published a study that reported a 14.2% rate of DRG migration in this same Medicare cohort, that is, classified as 331 on admission but migrated to 330. So, compared with other patients, this group ended up with longer LOS (7.6 vs. 4.8 days); higher total charges ($63,149 vs. $46,339); and higher CMS payment ($11,159 vs. $7,210) (Am J Surg. 2018;215:493-6). “We also identified a potential role for enhanced-recovery pathways to mitigate these factors,” he said.

He noted that the different stakeholders – hospitals, surgeons, anesthesiologists, hospitalists, other physicians, nurses, and extenders – will have to resolve how to divide bundled payments. “The biggest thing is communication between these groups, because moving forward CMS is trying to step away from the role of determining who gets paid what,” Dr. Hughes said. He noted this finding is consistent with his own previously published findings, along with those from senior study coauthor Anthony J. Senagore, MD, FACS, on resource consumption in value-based care.

Dr. Hughes and coauthors reported having no financial disclosures. Dr. Hughes is supported by the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases of the National Institutes of Health.

SOURCE: Huges BD. SSO 2018.

CHICAGO – As Medicare transitions to a value-based model that uses bundled payments, oncologic surgeons and medical institutions may want to take a close look at enhanced recovery pathways and more minimally invasive surgery for colectomy in both benign and malignant disease to close potential gaps in reimbursement and outcomes, according to a retrospective study of 4-year Medicare data presented at the Society of Surgical Oncology Annual Cancer Symposium here.

Hughes_Byron_D_TEX_web.jpg

• DRG poorly differentiates between benign and malignant disease. This problem is evidenced by the higher cost for the index admission in benign disease. “Whereas in malignant disease, there is a greater unrecognized cost-shifting to post-acute care services which are not addressed by the DRG system,” he said.
• The dominance of open colectomy where MIS could reduce episode costs. The study cited research that reported the advantages of MIS include lower episode costs in both younger and older patients, by $1,466 and $632, respectively; shorter hospital stays by 1.46 days; 20% lower 30-day readmissions rates; and lower rates of post-acute care services (J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A. 2017 Dec 13. doi: 10.1089/lap.2017.0521)
• Potential for DRG migration from code 331 (benign disease) to 330 (colon cancer but not with metastasis). Dr. Hughes and his coauthors published a study that reported a 14.2% rate of DRG migration in this same Medicare cohort, that is, classified as 331 on admission but migrated to 330. So, compared with other patients, this group ended up with longer LOS (7.6 vs. 4.8 days); higher total charges ($63,149 vs. $46,339); and higher CMS payment ($11,159 vs. $7,210) (Am J Surg. 2018;215:493-6). “We also identified a potential role for enhanced-recovery pathways to mitigate these factors,” he said.

He noted that the different stakeholders – hospitals, surgeons, anesthesiologists, hospitalists, other physicians, nurses, and extenders – will have to resolve how to divide bundled payments. “The biggest thing is communication between these groups, because moving forward CMS is trying to step away from the role of determining who gets paid what,” Dr. Hughes said. He noted this finding is consistent with his own previously published findings, along with those from senior study coauthor Anthony J. Senagore, MD, FACS, on resource consumption in value-based care.

Dr. Hughes and coauthors reported having no financial disclosures. Dr. Hughes is supported by the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases of the National Institutes of Health.

SOURCE: Huges BD. SSO 2018.

CHICAGO – As Medicare transitions to a value-based model that uses bundled payments, oncologic surgeons and medical institutions may want to take a close look at enhanced recovery pathways and more minimally invasive surgery for colectomy in both benign and malignant disease to close potential gaps in reimbursement and outcomes, according to a retrospective study of 4-year Medicare data presented at the Society of Surgical Oncology Annual Cancer Symposium here.

Hughes_Byron_D_TEX_web.jpg

• DRG poorly differentiates between benign and malignant disease. This problem is evidenced by the higher cost for the index admission in benign disease. “Whereas in malignant disease, there is a greater unrecognized cost-shifting to post-acute care services which are not addressed by the DRG system,” he said.
• The dominance of open colectomy where MIS could reduce episode costs. The study cited research that reported the advantages of MIS include lower episode costs in both younger and older patients, by $1,466 and $632, respectively; shorter hospital stays by 1.46 days; 20% lower 30-day readmissions rates; and lower rates of post-acute care services (J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A. 2017 Dec 13. doi: 10.1089/lap.2017.0521)
• Potential for DRG migration from code 331 (benign disease) to 330 (colon cancer but not with metastasis). Dr. Hughes and his coauthors published a study that reported a 14.2% rate of DRG migration in this same Medicare cohort, that is, classified as 331 on admission but migrated to 330. So, compared with other patients, this group ended up with longer LOS (7.6 vs. 4.8 days); higher total charges ($63,149 vs. $46,339); and higher CMS payment ($11,159 vs. $7,210) (Am J Surg. 2018;215:493-6). “We also identified a potential role for enhanced-recovery pathways to mitigate these factors,” he said.

He noted that the different stakeholders – hospitals, surgeons, anesthesiologists, hospitalists, other physicians, nurses, and extenders – will have to resolve how to divide bundled payments. “The biggest thing is communication between these groups, because moving forward CMS is trying to step away from the role of determining who gets paid what,” Dr. Hughes said. He noted this finding is consistent with his own previously published findings, along with those from senior study coauthor Anthony J. Senagore, MD, FACS, on resource consumption in value-based care.

Dr. Hughes and coauthors reported having no financial disclosures. Dr. Hughes is supported by the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases of the National Institutes of Health.

SOURCE: Huges BD. SSO 2018.

CHICAGO – Surgical resection is an effective treatment in selected patients with advanced melanoma treated with checkpoint blockade immunotherapy, according to a study of an institutional database at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York presented at the Society of Surgical Oncology Annual Cancer Symposium.

“In the era of improved systemic therapy, checkpoint blockade for metastatic melanoma and the ability to surgically resect all disease after treatment is associated with an estimated survival of 75%, better than what’s been previously reported,” said Danielle M. Bello, MD, of Memorial Sloan Kettering.

The study analyzed a cohort of 237 patients who had unresectable stage III and IV melanoma and were treated with checkpoint blockade, including CTLA-4, programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1), and programmed death-ligand 1 inhibitors, and then had surgical resection during 2003-2017.

Dr. Bello noted two previous studies that had reported encouraging outcomes in advanced melanoma. The first highlighted the role for surgery in stage IV melanoma. In that phase 3 clinical trial, patients had resection of up to five sites of metastatic disease and were then randomized to one of two treatment arms: bacillus Calmette-Guérin and allogeneic whole-cell vaccine (Canvaxin) or bacillus Calmette-Guérin and placebo. While this trial found no difference in overall survival between groups, it did report a 5-year overall survival exceeding 40% in both treatment arms, which highlighted that Stage IV patients who underwent resection of all their disease had survival outcomes superior to outcomes previously reported (Ann Surg Onc. 2017 Dec;24[13]:3991-4000). The second trial, the recent Checkmate 067 trial, emphasized the role of effective systemic checkpoint blockade in advanced stage III and IV melanoma. It reported that patients treated with combined nivolumab/ipilimumab therapy had not reached median overall survival at minimum 36 months of follow-up (N Engl J Med. 2017 Oct 5;377[14]:1345-56).

“We know that checkpoint inhibitor therapy has revolutionized the landscape of unresectable stage III and IV melanoma,” Dr. Bello said. However, despite encouraging trial readouts of overall survival, progression-free survival is a different story. “We know that the median progression-free survival even in our best combination therapy is 11.5 months, meaning that 50% of patients will go on to progress in a year and many will go on to surgical resection of their disease and do quite well,” she said.

Dr. Bello and her coauthors set out to describe outcomes of a “highly selective group” of patients who had surgical resection after checkpoint inhibitor therapy. “The majority of patients in our study had a cutaneous primary melanoma,” she said. Median age was 63 years, and 88% had stage IV disease. Regarding checkpoint blockade regimen, 62% received anti–CTLA-4, and 29% received combination anti–PD-1 and anti–CLTA-4 either sequentially or concomitantly prior to resection.

The median time from the start of immunotherapy to the first operation was 7 months. Forty-six percent had no further postoperative treatment after resection. In those, who did require further treatment, the majority received anti–PD-1 followed by targeted BRAF/MEK therapy, she said.

The analysis stratified patients into the following three categories based on radiological response to immunotherapy:

• Overall response to checkpoint blockade and the index lesion was either smaller since initiation of therapy or stabilized (12; 5.1%). Half of this group had a pathological complete response.
• Isolated site of progressive disease with residual stable disease elsewhere or as the only site of progressive disease (106; 44.7%).
• Multiple sites of progressive and palliative operations (119; 50.2%).

Median overall survival was 21 months in the entire study cohort with a median follow-up of 23 months, Dr. Bello said. “Those resected to no evidence of disease (NED) – 87 patients – had an estimated 5-year overall survival of 75%.” The NED group did not reach median OS.

The analysis also stratified overall survival by response to immunotherapy. “Patients with responding or stable disease had an estimated 90% 5-year overall survival,” Dr. Bellow said. “Those with one isolated progressive lesion that was resected had a 60% 5-year overall survival.” A more detailed analysis of the latter group found that those who had a resection to NED had an improved overall survival of 75% at 5 years. Resected patients who had residual remaining disease had a 30% 5-year overall survival.

“Further follow-up is needed to assess the durability and contributions of surgery, and further studies are underway to identify biomarkers associated with improved survival after immunotherapy and surgery,” Dr. Bello said.

SOURCE: Bello DM et al. SSO 2018, Abstract 5.

CHICAGO – Surgical resection is an effective treatment in selected patients with advanced melanoma treated with checkpoint blockade immunotherapy, according to a study of an institutional database at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York presented at the Society of Surgical Oncology Annual Cancer Symposium.

“In the era of improved systemic therapy, checkpoint blockade for metastatic melanoma and the ability to surgically resect all disease after treatment is associated with an estimated survival of 75%, better than what’s been previously reported,” said Danielle M. Bello, MD, of Memorial Sloan Kettering.

The study analyzed a cohort of 237 patients who had unresectable stage III and IV melanoma and were treated with checkpoint blockade, including CTLA-4, programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1), and programmed death-ligand 1 inhibitors, and then had surgical resection during 2003-2017.

Dr. Bello noted two previous studies that had reported encouraging outcomes in advanced melanoma. The first highlighted the role for surgery in stage IV melanoma. In that phase 3 clinical trial, patients had resection of up to five sites of metastatic disease and were then randomized to one of two treatment arms: bacillus Calmette-Guérin and allogeneic whole-cell vaccine (Canvaxin) or bacillus Calmette-Guérin and placebo. While this trial found no difference in overall survival between groups, it did report a 5-year overall survival exceeding 40% in both treatment arms, which highlighted that Stage IV patients who underwent resection of all their disease had survival outcomes superior to outcomes previously reported (Ann Surg Onc. 2017 Dec;24[13]:3991-4000). The second trial, the recent Checkmate 067 trial, emphasized the role of effective systemic checkpoint blockade in advanced stage III and IV melanoma. It reported that patients treated with combined nivolumab/ipilimumab therapy had not reached median overall survival at minimum 36 months of follow-up (N Engl J Med. 2017 Oct 5;377[14]:1345-56).

“We know that checkpoint inhibitor therapy has revolutionized the landscape of unresectable stage III and IV melanoma,” Dr. Bello said. However, despite encouraging trial readouts of overall survival, progression-free survival is a different story. “We know that the median progression-free survival even in our best combination therapy is 11.5 months, meaning that 50% of patients will go on to progress in a year and many will go on to surgical resection of their disease and do quite well,” she said.

Dr. Bello and her coauthors set out to describe outcomes of a “highly selective group” of patients who had surgical resection after checkpoint inhibitor therapy. “The majority of patients in our study had a cutaneous primary melanoma,” she said. Median age was 63 years, and 88% had stage IV disease. Regarding checkpoint blockade regimen, 62% received anti–CTLA-4, and 29% received combination anti–PD-1 and anti–CLTA-4 either sequentially or concomitantly prior to resection.

The median time from the start of immunotherapy to the first operation was 7 months. Forty-six percent had no further postoperative treatment after resection. In those, who did require further treatment, the majority received anti–PD-1 followed by targeted BRAF/MEK therapy, she said.

The analysis stratified patients into the following three categories based on radiological response to immunotherapy:

• Overall response to checkpoint blockade and the index lesion was either smaller since initiation of therapy or stabilized (12; 5.1%). Half of this group had a pathological complete response.
• Isolated site of progressive disease with residual stable disease elsewhere or as the only site of progressive disease (106; 44.7%).
• Multiple sites of progressive and palliative operations (119; 50.2%).

Median overall survival was 21 months in the entire study cohort with a median follow-up of 23 months, Dr. Bello said. “Those resected to no evidence of disease (NED) – 87 patients – had an estimated 5-year overall survival of 75%.” The NED group did not reach median OS.

The analysis also stratified overall survival by response to immunotherapy. “Patients with responding or stable disease had an estimated 90% 5-year overall survival,” Dr. Bellow said. “Those with one isolated progressive lesion that was resected had a 60% 5-year overall survival.” A more detailed analysis of the latter group found that those who had a resection to NED had an improved overall survival of 75% at 5 years. Resected patients who had residual remaining disease had a 30% 5-year overall survival.

“Further follow-up is needed to assess the durability and contributions of surgery, and further studies are underway to identify biomarkers associated with improved survival after immunotherapy and surgery,” Dr. Bello said.

SOURCE: Bello DM et al. SSO 2018, Abstract 5.

CHICAGO – Surgical resection is an effective treatment in selected patients with advanced melanoma treated with checkpoint blockade immunotherapy, according to a study of an institutional database at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York presented at the Society of Surgical Oncology Annual Cancer Symposium.

“In the era of improved systemic therapy, checkpoint blockade for metastatic melanoma and the ability to surgically resect all disease after treatment is associated with an estimated survival of 75%, better than what’s been previously reported,” said Danielle M. Bello, MD, of Memorial Sloan Kettering.

The study analyzed a cohort of 237 patients who had unresectable stage III and IV melanoma and were treated with checkpoint blockade, including CTLA-4, programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1), and programmed death-ligand 1 inhibitors, and then had surgical resection during 2003-2017.

Dr. Bello noted two previous studies that had reported encouraging outcomes in advanced melanoma. The first highlighted the role for surgery in stage IV melanoma. In that phase 3 clinical trial, patients had resection of up to five sites of metastatic disease and were then randomized to one of two treatment arms: bacillus Calmette-Guérin and allogeneic whole-cell vaccine (Canvaxin) or bacillus Calmette-Guérin and placebo. While this trial found no difference in overall survival between groups, it did report a 5-year overall survival exceeding 40% in both treatment arms, which highlighted that Stage IV patients who underwent resection of all their disease had survival outcomes superior to outcomes previously reported (Ann Surg Onc. 2017 Dec;24[13]:3991-4000). The second trial, the recent Checkmate 067 trial, emphasized the role of effective systemic checkpoint blockade in advanced stage III and IV melanoma. It reported that patients treated with combined nivolumab/ipilimumab therapy had not reached median overall survival at minimum 36 months of follow-up (N Engl J Med. 2017 Oct 5;377[14]:1345-56).

“We know that checkpoint inhibitor therapy has revolutionized the landscape of unresectable stage III and IV melanoma,” Dr. Bello said. However, despite encouraging trial readouts of overall survival, progression-free survival is a different story. “We know that the median progression-free survival even in our best combination therapy is 11.5 months, meaning that 50% of patients will go on to progress in a year and many will go on to surgical resection of their disease and do quite well,” she said.

Dr. Bello and her coauthors set out to describe outcomes of a “highly selective group” of patients who had surgical resection after checkpoint inhibitor therapy. “The majority of patients in our study had a cutaneous primary melanoma,” she said. Median age was 63 years, and 88% had stage IV disease. Regarding checkpoint blockade regimen, 62% received anti–CTLA-4, and 29% received combination anti–PD-1 and anti–CLTA-4 either sequentially or concomitantly prior to resection.

The median time from the start of immunotherapy to the first operation was 7 months. Forty-six percent had no further postoperative treatment after resection. In those, who did require further treatment, the majority received anti–PD-1 followed by targeted BRAF/MEK therapy, she said.

The analysis stratified patients into the following three categories based on radiological response to immunotherapy:

• Overall response to checkpoint blockade and the index lesion was either smaller since initiation of therapy or stabilized (12; 5.1%). Half of this group had a pathological complete response.
• Isolated site of progressive disease with residual stable disease elsewhere or as the only site of progressive disease (106; 44.7%).
• Multiple sites of progressive and palliative operations (119; 50.2%).

Median overall survival was 21 months in the entire study cohort with a median follow-up of 23 months, Dr. Bello said. “Those resected to no evidence of disease (NED) – 87 patients – had an estimated 5-year overall survival of 75%.” The NED group did not reach median OS.

The analysis also stratified overall survival by response to immunotherapy. “Patients with responding or stable disease had an estimated 90% 5-year overall survival,” Dr. Bellow said. “Those with one isolated progressive lesion that was resected had a 60% 5-year overall survival.” A more detailed analysis of the latter group found that those who had a resection to NED had an improved overall survival of 75% at 5 years. Resected patients who had residual remaining disease had a 30% 5-year overall survival.

“Further follow-up is needed to assess the durability and contributions of surgery, and further studies are underway to identify biomarkers associated with improved survival after immunotherapy and surgery,” Dr. Bello said.

SOURCE: Bello DM et al. SSO 2018, Abstract 5.

CHICAGO – Patients with clinically node-negative HER2-positive or triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) who achieve a pathological complete response in the breast after neoadjuvant chemotherapy could benefit from clinical trials to evaluate the option of omitting axillary node surgery in this population, according to a retrospective analysis of more than 22,000 cases in the National Cancer Database reported at the Society of Surgical Oncology Annual Cancer Symposium.

Boughey_Judy_C_web.jpg

Barron_Alison_web.jpg

SOURCE: Barron AU et al. Society of Surgical Oncology Annual Cancer Symposium, Abstract 48.

CHICAGO – Patients with clinically node-negative HER2-positive or triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) who achieve a pathological complete response in the breast after neoadjuvant chemotherapy could benefit from clinical trials to evaluate the option of omitting axillary node surgery in this population, according to a retrospective analysis of more than 22,000 cases in the National Cancer Database reported at the Society of Surgical Oncology Annual Cancer Symposium.

Boughey_Judy_C_web.jpg

Barron_Alison_web.jpg

SOURCE: Barron AU et al. Society of Surgical Oncology Annual Cancer Symposium, Abstract 48.

CHICAGO – Patients with clinically node-negative HER2-positive or triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) who achieve a pathological complete response in the breast after neoadjuvant chemotherapy could benefit from clinical trials to evaluate the option of omitting axillary node surgery in this population, according to a retrospective analysis of more than 22,000 cases in the National Cancer Database reported at the Society of Surgical Oncology Annual Cancer Symposium.

Boughey_Judy_C_web.jpg

Barron_Alison_web.jpg

SOURCE: Barron AU et al. Society of Surgical Oncology Annual Cancer Symposium, Abstract 48.

CHICAGO – Delaying surgery after neoadjuvant therapy for locally advanced rectal cancer for up to 12 weeks does not seem to impact complication rates compared to surgery at 8 weeks or earlier, findings that run counter to results from a major European clinical trial reported in 2016, investigators reported at the Society of Surgical Oncology Annual Cancer Symposium.

“There’s an increasing trend toward delayed surgery beyond eight to 12 weeks after neoadjuvant therapy (NT) for locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC),” said Campbell Roxburgh, FRCS, PhD, of the University of Glasgow in Scotland. “Although we saw an increase in all complications in patients who had surgery beyond 12 weeks, there were no increases in surgical site complications, grade 3-5 complications, or anastomotic leaks. Before 12 weeks we did not observe increases in any type of complication where surgery was performed prior to or after 8 weeks.”

The study involved 798 patients who had received NT for LARC from June 2009 to March 2014 at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York. The vast majority – 76% (607) – had rectal resection within 16 weeks of completing NT. Among them, 52% (317) had surgery 5-8 weeks after NT, 38% (229) had surgery at 8-12 weeks post-NT, and 10% (61) had surgery 12-16 weeks after completing NT. Those who had surgery beyond 16 weeks mostly had it deferred because they were undergoing nonoperative management in the case of complete clinical response to treatment or had a comorbidity that prevented earlier surgery, Dr. Roxburgh said.

The complication rate was 42.3% among the patients who had surgery up to 16 weeks after NT, Dr. Roxburgh said. The most common complication was surgical site infection (SSI) in 16.6% (101), followed by a grade 3-5 complication in 10.5% (64) and anastomotic leak in 6.4% (39). Overall complication rates among the two groups that had surgery within 12 weeks were not statistically different from the overall complication rate, Dr. Roxburgh said: 42.5% (138) in the 5- to 8-week group; and 36.7% (84) in the 8- to 12-week group. The 12- to16-week group had a complication rate of 56% (34, P = .022).

Dr. Roxburgh noted that the idea of delaying surgery beyond 8 weeks after NT has been a subject of debate, and that these findings run counter to those reported in the GRECCAR-6 trial (J Clin Oncol. 2016;34:3773-80). That study compared groups that had surgery for rectal cancer at 7 and 11 weeks after neoadjuvant radiochemotherapy and found that those in the 11-week group had higher rates of complications.

Dr. Roxburgh also reported on an analysis of the 12- to 16-week subgroup that found the highest complication rates were among those who had low anterior resection (53% vs. 41% in the 5- to 8-week group and 31% in the 8- to 12-week population), and patients who had a poor treatment response (no T-downstaging, 66% vs. 44% and 33%, respectively). Age, pretreatment and posttreatment TNM stages, surgical approach (open or minimally invasive), and year of treatment did not factor in complication rates in the subgroup analysis, Dr. Roxburgh noted.

The univariate regression analysis determined a trend toward increased rates of all complications in the 12- to 16-week group (P = .081). But the multivariate analysis did not find timing of surgery to be an independent risk factor for all complications, Dr. Roxburgh said. “We believe other factors, including tumor location, the type of NT, operative approach, and treatment response, however, were more important on multivariate analysis,” he said. For example, open surgery had an odds ratio of 1.7 (P = .004).

During the discussion, Dr. Roxburgh was asked what would be the optimal timing for resection after NT in LARC. “I would recommend posttreatment assessment with MRI and proctoscopy between 8 to 12 weeks and in the case of residual tumor or incomplete response to treatment, scheduling surgery at that time,” he said.

Dr. Roxburgh and coauthors reported having no financial disclosures.

SOURCE: Roxburgh C, et al. Society of Surgical Oncology Annual Cancer Symposium Abstract No. 3.

CHICAGO – Delaying surgery after neoadjuvant therapy for locally advanced rectal cancer for up to 12 weeks does not seem to impact complication rates compared to surgery at 8 weeks or earlier, findings that run counter to results from a major European clinical trial reported in 2016, investigators reported at the Society of Surgical Oncology Annual Cancer Symposium.

“There’s an increasing trend toward delayed surgery beyond eight to 12 weeks after neoadjuvant therapy (NT) for locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC),” said Campbell Roxburgh, FRCS, PhD, of the University of Glasgow in Scotland. “Although we saw an increase in all complications in patients who had surgery beyond 12 weeks, there were no increases in surgical site complications, grade 3-5 complications, or anastomotic leaks. Before 12 weeks we did not observe increases in any type of complication where surgery was performed prior to or after 8 weeks.”

The study involved 798 patients who had received NT for LARC from June 2009 to March 2014 at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York. The vast majority – 76% (607) – had rectal resection within 16 weeks of completing NT. Among them, 52% (317) had surgery 5-8 weeks after NT, 38% (229) had surgery at 8-12 weeks post-NT, and 10% (61) had surgery 12-16 weeks after completing NT. Those who had surgery beyond 16 weeks mostly had it deferred because they were undergoing nonoperative management in the case of complete clinical response to treatment or had a comorbidity that prevented earlier surgery, Dr. Roxburgh said.

The complication rate was 42.3% among the patients who had surgery up to 16 weeks after NT, Dr. Roxburgh said. The most common complication was surgical site infection (SSI) in 16.6% (101), followed by a grade 3-5 complication in 10.5% (64) and anastomotic leak in 6.4% (39). Overall complication rates among the two groups that had surgery within 12 weeks were not statistically different from the overall complication rate, Dr. Roxburgh said: 42.5% (138) in the 5- to 8-week group; and 36.7% (84) in the 8- to 12-week group. The 12- to16-week group had a complication rate of 56% (34, P = .022).

Dr. Roxburgh noted that the idea of delaying surgery beyond 8 weeks after NT has been a subject of debate, and that these findings run counter to those reported in the GRECCAR-6 trial (J Clin Oncol. 2016;34:3773-80). That study compared groups that had surgery for rectal cancer at 7 and 11 weeks after neoadjuvant radiochemotherapy and found that those in the 11-week group had higher rates of complications.

Dr. Roxburgh also reported on an analysis of the 12- to 16-week subgroup that found the highest complication rates were among those who had low anterior resection (53% vs. 41% in the 5- to 8-week group and 31% in the 8- to 12-week population), and patients who had a poor treatment response (no T-downstaging, 66% vs. 44% and 33%, respectively). Age, pretreatment and posttreatment TNM stages, surgical approach (open or minimally invasive), and year of treatment did not factor in complication rates in the subgroup analysis, Dr. Roxburgh noted.

The univariate regression analysis determined a trend toward increased rates of all complications in the 12- to 16-week group (P = .081). But the multivariate analysis did not find timing of surgery to be an independent risk factor for all complications, Dr. Roxburgh said. “We believe other factors, including tumor location, the type of NT, operative approach, and treatment response, however, were more important on multivariate analysis,” he said. For example, open surgery had an odds ratio of 1.7 (P = .004).

During the discussion, Dr. Roxburgh was asked what would be the optimal timing for resection after NT in LARC. “I would recommend posttreatment assessment with MRI and proctoscopy between 8 to 12 weeks and in the case of residual tumor or incomplete response to treatment, scheduling surgery at that time,” he said.

Dr. Roxburgh and coauthors reported having no financial disclosures.

SOURCE: Roxburgh C, et al. Society of Surgical Oncology Annual Cancer Symposium Abstract No. 3.

CHICAGO – Delaying surgery after neoadjuvant therapy for locally advanced rectal cancer for up to 12 weeks does not seem to impact complication rates compared to surgery at 8 weeks or earlier, findings that run counter to results from a major European clinical trial reported in 2016, investigators reported at the Society of Surgical Oncology Annual Cancer Symposium.

“There’s an increasing trend toward delayed surgery beyond eight to 12 weeks after neoadjuvant therapy (NT) for locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC),” said Campbell Roxburgh, FRCS, PhD, of the University of Glasgow in Scotland. “Although we saw an increase in all complications in patients who had surgery beyond 12 weeks, there were no increases in surgical site complications, grade 3-5 complications, or anastomotic leaks. Before 12 weeks we did not observe increases in any type of complication where surgery was performed prior to or after 8 weeks.”

The study involved 798 patients who had received NT for LARC from June 2009 to March 2014 at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York. The vast majority – 76% (607) – had rectal resection within 16 weeks of completing NT. Among them, 52% (317) had surgery 5-8 weeks after NT, 38% (229) had surgery at 8-12 weeks post-NT, and 10% (61) had surgery 12-16 weeks after completing NT. Those who had surgery beyond 16 weeks mostly had it deferred because they were undergoing nonoperative management in the case of complete clinical response to treatment or had a comorbidity that prevented earlier surgery, Dr. Roxburgh said.

The complication rate was 42.3% among the patients who had surgery up to 16 weeks after NT, Dr. Roxburgh said. The most common complication was surgical site infection (SSI) in 16.6% (101), followed by a grade 3-5 complication in 10.5% (64) and anastomotic leak in 6.4% (39). Overall complication rates among the two groups that had surgery within 12 weeks were not statistically different from the overall complication rate, Dr. Roxburgh said: 42.5% (138) in the 5- to 8-week group; and 36.7% (84) in the 8- to 12-week group. The 12- to16-week group had a complication rate of 56% (34, P = .022).

Dr. Roxburgh noted that the idea of delaying surgery beyond 8 weeks after NT has been a subject of debate, and that these findings run counter to those reported in the GRECCAR-6 trial (J Clin Oncol. 2016;34:3773-80). That study compared groups that had surgery for rectal cancer at 7 and 11 weeks after neoadjuvant radiochemotherapy and found that those in the 11-week group had higher rates of complications.

Dr. Roxburgh also reported on an analysis of the 12- to 16-week subgroup that found the highest complication rates were among those who had low anterior resection (53% vs. 41% in the 5- to 8-week group and 31% in the 8- to 12-week population), and patients who had a poor treatment response (no T-downstaging, 66% vs. 44% and 33%, respectively). Age, pretreatment and posttreatment TNM stages, surgical approach (open or minimally invasive), and year of treatment did not factor in complication rates in the subgroup analysis, Dr. Roxburgh noted.

The univariate regression analysis determined a trend toward increased rates of all complications in the 12- to 16-week group (P = .081). But the multivariate analysis did not find timing of surgery to be an independent risk factor for all complications, Dr. Roxburgh said. “We believe other factors, including tumor location, the type of NT, operative approach, and treatment response, however, were more important on multivariate analysis,” he said. For example, open surgery had an odds ratio of 1.7 (P = .004).

During the discussion, Dr. Roxburgh was asked what would be the optimal timing for resection after NT in LARC. “I would recommend posttreatment assessment with MRI and proctoscopy between 8 to 12 weeks and in the case of residual tumor or incomplete response to treatment, scheduling surgery at that time,” he said.

Dr. Roxburgh and coauthors reported having no financial disclosures.

SOURCE: Roxburgh C, et al. Society of Surgical Oncology Annual Cancer Symposium Abstract No. 3.

CHICAGO – Clinical guidelines recommend 12 lymph nodes or more are needed to achieve adequate sampling in colon cancer, but those guidelines may need to be revised to take into account which side the cancer is on to accurately stage a subset of patients with colon cancer, according to results of a prospective, multicenter clinical trial presented at the Society of Surgical Oncology Annual Cancer Symposium.

Ahmed Dehal, MD, of John Wayne Canter Institute in Santa Monica, Calif., presented results of the trial that compared nodal staging in right-sided vs. left-sided colon cancer in two cohorts with T3N0 colon cancer who had at least one lymph node examined: a group of 370 patients from the randomized, multicenter prospective trial; and a sampling of 153,945 patients in the National Cancer Database (NCDB). The latter was used to validate findings in the trial group.

Dehal_Ahmed_CALIF_web.jpg

“Current guidelines regarding the minimum number of nodes needed to accurately stage patients with node-negative T3 colon cancer may need to be reevaluated given that the decision to give those patients chemotherapy is largely based on the nodal status,” he said. “More studies are needed to improve our understanding of the impact of sidedness on nodal staging in the colon cancer.”

Dr. Dehal and his coauthors reported having no financial disclosures.

SOURCE: Dehal A et al. Society of Surgical Oncology Annual Cancer Symposium. Abstract #23: Accuracy of nodal staging is influenced by sidedness in colon cancer: Results of a multicenter prospective trial.

*CORRECTION, 4/4/2018; a previous version of this story misidentified the cancer type

CHICAGO – Clinical guidelines recommend 12 lymph nodes or more are needed to achieve adequate sampling in colon cancer, but those guidelines may need to be revised to take into account which side the cancer is on to accurately stage a subset of patients with colon cancer, according to results of a prospective, multicenter clinical trial presented at the Society of Surgical Oncology Annual Cancer Symposium.

Ahmed Dehal, MD, of John Wayne Canter Institute in Santa Monica, Calif., presented results of the trial that compared nodal staging in right-sided vs. left-sided colon cancer in two cohorts with T3N0 colon cancer who had at least one lymph node examined: a group of 370 patients from the randomized, multicenter prospective trial; and a sampling of 153,945 patients in the National Cancer Database (NCDB). The latter was used to validate findings in the trial group.

Dehal_Ahmed_CALIF_web.jpg

“Current guidelines regarding the minimum number of nodes needed to accurately stage patients with node-negative T3 colon cancer may need to be reevaluated given that the decision to give those patients chemotherapy is largely based on the nodal status,” he said. “More studies are needed to improve our understanding of the impact of sidedness on nodal staging in the colon cancer.”

Dr. Dehal and his coauthors reported having no financial disclosures.

SOURCE: Dehal A et al. Society of Surgical Oncology Annual Cancer Symposium. Abstract #23: Accuracy of nodal staging is influenced by sidedness in colon cancer: Results of a multicenter prospective trial.

*CORRECTION, 4/4/2018; a previous version of this story misidentified the cancer type

CHICAGO – Clinical guidelines recommend 12 lymph nodes or more are needed to achieve adequate sampling in colon cancer, but those guidelines may need to be revised to take into account which side the cancer is on to accurately stage a subset of patients with colon cancer, according to results of a prospective, multicenter clinical trial presented at the Society of Surgical Oncology Annual Cancer Symposium.

Ahmed Dehal, MD, of John Wayne Canter Institute in Santa Monica, Calif., presented results of the trial that compared nodal staging in right-sided vs. left-sided colon cancer in two cohorts with T3N0 colon cancer who had at least one lymph node examined: a group of 370 patients from the randomized, multicenter prospective trial; and a sampling of 153,945 patients in the National Cancer Database (NCDB). The latter was used to validate findings in the trial group.

Dehal_Ahmed_CALIF_web.jpg

“Current guidelines regarding the minimum number of nodes needed to accurately stage patients with node-negative T3 colon cancer may need to be reevaluated given that the decision to give those patients chemotherapy is largely based on the nodal status,” he said. “More studies are needed to improve our understanding of the impact of sidedness on nodal staging in the colon cancer.”

Dr. Dehal and his coauthors reported having no financial disclosures.

SOURCE: Dehal A et al. Society of Surgical Oncology Annual Cancer Symposium. Abstract #23: Accuracy of nodal staging is influenced by sidedness in colon cancer: Results of a multicenter prospective trial.

*CORRECTION, 4/4/2018; a previous version of this story misidentified the cancer type

The likelihood that a trauma or acute care surgeon will encounter or treat a transgender patient in an emergency setting is increasing every year.

The number of patients who self-identify as transgender and who have undergone both medical and/or surgical gender-affirming treatment is on the rise. The trend has accelerated since private insurers, Medicare, and Medicaid are now covering some of the costs (JAMA Surg. 2018 Feb 28. doi: 10.1001/jamasurg.2017.6231).

Mandell_Samuel_WA_web.jpg

Privacy concerns can be of particular sensitivity. “Care must be taken to maintain privacy for the patient, as others outside of the hospital may not know they are transgender. Consultation with the patient’s primary care provider may be beneficial to determine the extent of gender-affirmation and the patient’s disclosure to family and friends,” the investigator advised. In addition, the clinician needs to establish which if any nonmedical interventions the transgender patients has had. These may include nonprescription hormone therapy and silicone injections.

The encounter should include an evaluation for injury to genitalia. “Transgender patients may have significant dysphoria associated with their preoperative genitals,” Dr. Mandell and his coauthors said. In these cases, “involvement of providers experienced with examination of transgender patients should be sought, if possible.” These patients should be screened for potential abuse by a companion or self-injury, the investigators suggested.

Dr. Mandell and his coauthors also discussed some of the nuances of trauma care for this population. For example, transgender women may need a smaller endotracheal tube for establishing an airway as intubation to avoid damaging surgically altered vocal chords. Other craniofacial alterations can get in the way of establishing an airway. Clinicians also should keep in mind the increased likelihood of a venous thromboembolism from estrogen hormone therapy in immobilized transgender patients in the trauma setting. Implants and surgical alterations can add a layer of complexity to reading images. Anatomical rearrangement can make catheterization challenging.

Dr. Mandell and his coauthors concluded, “Further research is needed on the appropriate management of cross-gender hormones, dosing of medications and nutrition, and the special considerations for injury patterns and risks in transgender patients. Development of a system for quickly determining the state of gender-affirmation of the patient in regards to hormone therapy, surgeries, and social aspects may prove beneficial to providers in the setting of trauma, but involvement of the transgender population in the development of any such system is crucial.”

Eileen M. Bulger, MD, FACS, Chair ACS Committee on Trauma and one of the coauthors of the study, views the findings as potentially useful to meet the training deficit on transgender trauma issues. “As trauma surgeons, we strive to provide optimal care by attending to the physical, psychological, and social needs of our patients. This review raises awareness of critical issues to consider when caring for transgender patients and should be included in our educational programs for trauma fellowship training and used as a resource to raise awareness in our trauma centers.”

Dr. Mandell and his coauthors reported having no financial disclosures.

The likelihood that a trauma or acute care surgeon will encounter or treat a transgender patient in an emergency setting is increasing every year.

The number of patients who self-identify as transgender and who have undergone both medical and/or surgical gender-affirming treatment is on the rise. The trend has accelerated since private insurers, Medicare, and Medicaid are now covering some of the costs (JAMA Surg. 2018 Feb 28. doi: 10.1001/jamasurg.2017.6231).

Mandell_Samuel_WA_web.jpg

Privacy concerns can be of particular sensitivity. “Care must be taken to maintain privacy for the patient, as others outside of the hospital may not know they are transgender. Consultation with the patient’s primary care provider may be beneficial to determine the extent of gender-affirmation and the patient’s disclosure to family and friends,” the investigator advised. In addition, the clinician needs to establish which if any nonmedical interventions the transgender patients has had. These may include nonprescription hormone therapy and silicone injections.

The encounter should include an evaluation for injury to genitalia. “Transgender patients may have significant dysphoria associated with their preoperative genitals,” Dr. Mandell and his coauthors said. In these cases, “involvement of providers experienced with examination of transgender patients should be sought, if possible.” These patients should be screened for potential abuse by a companion or self-injury, the investigators suggested.

Dr. Mandell and his coauthors also discussed some of the nuances of trauma care for this population. For example, transgender women may need a smaller endotracheal tube for establishing an airway as intubation to avoid damaging surgically altered vocal chords. Other craniofacial alterations can get in the way of establishing an airway. Clinicians also should keep in mind the increased likelihood of a venous thromboembolism from estrogen hormone therapy in immobilized transgender patients in the trauma setting. Implants and surgical alterations can add a layer of complexity to reading images. Anatomical rearrangement can make catheterization challenging.

Dr. Mandell and his coauthors concluded, “Further research is needed on the appropriate management of cross-gender hormones, dosing of medications and nutrition, and the special considerations for injury patterns and risks in transgender patients. Development of a system for quickly determining the state of gender-affirmation of the patient in regards to hormone therapy, surgeries, and social aspects may prove beneficial to providers in the setting of trauma, but involvement of the transgender population in the development of any such system is crucial.”

Eileen M. Bulger, MD, FACS, Chair ACS Committee on Trauma and one of the coauthors of the study, views the findings as potentially useful to meet the training deficit on transgender trauma issues. “As trauma surgeons, we strive to provide optimal care by attending to the physical, psychological, and social needs of our patients. This review raises awareness of critical issues to consider when caring for transgender patients and should be included in our educational programs for trauma fellowship training and used as a resource to raise awareness in our trauma centers.”

Dr. Mandell and his coauthors reported having no financial disclosures.

The likelihood that a trauma or acute care surgeon will encounter or treat a transgender patient in an emergency setting is increasing every year.

The number of patients who self-identify as transgender and who have undergone both medical and/or surgical gender-affirming treatment is on the rise. The trend has accelerated since private insurers, Medicare, and Medicaid are now covering some of the costs (JAMA Surg. 2018 Feb 28. doi: 10.1001/jamasurg.2017.6231).

Mandell_Samuel_WA_web.jpg

Privacy concerns can be of particular sensitivity. “Care must be taken to maintain privacy for the patient, as others outside of the hospital may not know they are transgender. Consultation with the patient’s primary care provider may be beneficial to determine the extent of gender-affirmation and the patient’s disclosure to family and friends,” the investigator advised. In addition, the clinician needs to establish which if any nonmedical interventions the transgender patients has had. These may include nonprescription hormone therapy and silicone injections.

The encounter should include an evaluation for injury to genitalia. “Transgender patients may have significant dysphoria associated with their preoperative genitals,” Dr. Mandell and his coauthors said. In these cases, “involvement of providers experienced with examination of transgender patients should be sought, if possible.” These patients should be screened for potential abuse by a companion or self-injury, the investigators suggested.

Dr. Mandell and his coauthors also discussed some of the nuances of trauma care for this population. For example, transgender women may need a smaller endotracheal tube for establishing an airway as intubation to avoid damaging surgically altered vocal chords. Other craniofacial alterations can get in the way of establishing an airway. Clinicians also should keep in mind the increased likelihood of a venous thromboembolism from estrogen hormone therapy in immobilized transgender patients in the trauma setting. Implants and surgical alterations can add a layer of complexity to reading images. Anatomical rearrangement can make catheterization challenging.

Dr. Mandell and his coauthors concluded, “Further research is needed on the appropriate management of cross-gender hormones, dosing of medications and nutrition, and the special considerations for injury patterns and risks in transgender patients. Development of a system for quickly determining the state of gender-affirmation of the patient in regards to hormone therapy, surgeries, and social aspects may prove beneficial to providers in the setting of trauma, but involvement of the transgender population in the development of any such system is crucial.”

Eileen M. Bulger, MD, FACS, Chair ACS Committee on Trauma and one of the coauthors of the study, views the findings as potentially useful to meet the training deficit on transgender trauma issues. “As trauma surgeons, we strive to provide optimal care by attending to the physical, psychological, and social needs of our patients. This review raises awareness of critical issues to consider when caring for transgender patients and should be included in our educational programs for trauma fellowship training and used as a resource to raise awareness in our trauma centers.”

Dr. Mandell and his coauthors reported having no financial disclosures.

CHICAGO – Women who have treatment for breast cancer seldom talk about the costs of care with their medical team, but a study out of Duke University has found that more than one-third reported having a financial burden from their breast cancer treatment, even among women with health insurance, according to a report presented at the Society of Surgical Oncology Annual Cancer Symposium.

“The financial harm associated with cancer treatment is now known as ‘financial toxicity,’ ” Rachel A. Greenup, MD, MPH, said in reporting the results of an 88-item survey completed by 654 adult women who had treatment for breast cancer. The women were recruited through the Army of Women of the Dr. Susan Love Research Foundation and The Sister’s Network of North Carolina, an African-American breast cancer survivors’ organization.

Overall, 69% of survey respondents had private insurance and 26% had Medicare. Of the patients surveyed, 94% had breast cancer surgery: 40.6% lumpectomy, 23.7% mastectomy, and 29.7% bilateral mastectomy; 34% also had breast reconstruction. Among those surveyed, 43% reported considering costs in their treatment decision. Of these, 29% considered costs when making surgical treatment decisions, including 14% who reported that costs were “extremely” important.

Despite the high levels of insurance coverage, 35% of the study participants reported a financial burden resulting from cancer treatment, ranging from “somewhat” burdensome to “catastrophic.” The median out-of-pocket cost for the study participants was $4,000, and 5% exceeded $40,000 in such costs, Dr. Greenup said. “The risk of financial harm and increased out-of-pocket costs to patients differed by surgery type,” with higher financial burdens seen in women who underwent bilateral mastectomy.

Cost was one of many factors survey participants reported considering when making surgical treatment decisions, but the most important factors were the opinions and advice of the medical team and the individual patient’s fear of recurrence. However, in lower-income women, cost factored more significantly in decision making. “In a subset of women who reported an annual income of $45,000 a year or less, cost of treatment gained importance and, interestingly, became more important than many variables we routinely discuss – for example, appearance of the breast, sexuality, avoiding radiation, and breast preservation,” Dr. Greenup said. “An income of $74,000 a year was the tipping point at which women reported incorporating costs into their cancer treatment decisions.”

She added that younger, minority women who did not have Medicare coverage were more likely to consider costs in breast cancer treatment decisions.

Most women surveyed (79%) said they preferred to know their out-of-pocket costs before they begin treatment, Dr. Greenup said, “and 40% believed that we as physicians should be considering out-of-pocket costs while making medical decisions.” However, 78% of those surveyed said they never discussed costs with their cancer team – despite American Society of Clinical Oncologists guidelines, she pointed out – and 35% said their treatment costs were higher than expected.

Dr. Greenup described the study population as “well engaged … with good insurance and strong educational background that likely does not reflect the general population.” The results may not be generalizable. “We expect that in a general cohort of women, our findings would be even more exaggerated,” she said.

The study points out the need to better understand how cost transparency may affect breast cancer treatment decisions, Dr. Greenup said. “As eligible women with breast cancer choose between surgical options, it’s important that we consider the potential risk of financial harm as we guide them through these difficult treatment decisions,” she said.

Dr. Greenup and her study coauthors reported having no financial disclosures.

op@frontlinemedcom.com

SOURCE: Greenup RA. SSO 2018, Abstract No. 24.

CHICAGO – Women who have treatment for breast cancer seldom talk about the costs of care with their medical team, but a study out of Duke University has found that more than one-third reported having a financial burden from their breast cancer treatment, even among women with health insurance, according to a report presented at the Society of Surgical Oncology Annual Cancer Symposium.

“The financial harm associated with cancer treatment is now known as ‘financial toxicity,’ ” Rachel A. Greenup, MD, MPH, said in reporting the results of an 88-item survey completed by 654 adult women who had treatment for breast cancer. The women were recruited through the Army of Women of the Dr. Susan Love Research Foundation and The Sister’s Network of North Carolina, an African-American breast cancer survivors’ organization.

Overall, 69% of survey respondents had private insurance and 26% had Medicare. Of the patients surveyed, 94% had breast cancer surgery: 40.6% lumpectomy, 23.7% mastectomy, and 29.7% bilateral mastectomy; 34% also had breast reconstruction. Among those surveyed, 43% reported considering costs in their treatment decision. Of these, 29% considered costs when making surgical treatment decisions, including 14% who reported that costs were “extremely” important.

Despite the high levels of insurance coverage, 35% of the study participants reported a financial burden resulting from cancer treatment, ranging from “somewhat” burdensome to “catastrophic.” The median out-of-pocket cost for the study participants was $4,000, and 5% exceeded $40,000 in such costs, Dr. Greenup said. “The risk of financial harm and increased out-of-pocket costs to patients differed by surgery type,” with higher financial burdens seen in women who underwent bilateral mastectomy.

Cost was one of many factors survey participants reported considering when making surgical treatment decisions, but the most important factors were the opinions and advice of the medical team and the individual patient’s fear of recurrence. However, in lower-income women, cost factored more significantly in decision making. “In a subset of women who reported an annual income of $45,000 a year or less, cost of treatment gained importance and, interestingly, became more important than many variables we routinely discuss – for example, appearance of the breast, sexuality, avoiding radiation, and breast preservation,” Dr. Greenup said. “An income of $74,000 a year was the tipping point at which women reported incorporating costs into their cancer treatment decisions.”

She added that younger, minority women who did not have Medicare coverage were more likely to consider costs in breast cancer treatment decisions.

Most women surveyed (79%) said they preferred to know their out-of-pocket costs before they begin treatment, Dr. Greenup said, “and 40% believed that we as physicians should be considering out-of-pocket costs while making medical decisions.” However, 78% of those surveyed said they never discussed costs with their cancer team – despite American Society of Clinical Oncologists guidelines, she pointed out – and 35% said their treatment costs were higher than expected.

Dr. Greenup described the study population as “well engaged … with good insurance and strong educational background that likely does not reflect the general population.” The results may not be generalizable. “We expect that in a general cohort of women, our findings would be even more exaggerated,” she said.

The study points out the need to better understand how cost transparency may affect breast cancer treatment decisions, Dr. Greenup said. “As eligible women with breast cancer choose between surgical options, it’s important that we consider the potential risk of financial harm as we guide them through these difficult treatment decisions,” she said.

Dr. Greenup and her study coauthors reported having no financial disclosures.

op@frontlinemedcom.com

SOURCE: Greenup RA. SSO 2018, Abstract No. 24.

CHICAGO – Women who have treatment for breast cancer seldom talk about the costs of care with their medical team, but a study out of Duke University has found that more than one-third reported having a financial burden from their breast cancer treatment, even among women with health insurance, according to a report presented at the Society of Surgical Oncology Annual Cancer Symposium.

“The financial harm associated with cancer treatment is now known as ‘financial toxicity,’ ” Rachel A. Greenup, MD, MPH, said in reporting the results of an 88-item survey completed by 654 adult women who had treatment for breast cancer. The women were recruited through the Army of Women of the Dr. Susan Love Research Foundation and The Sister’s Network of North Carolina, an African-American breast cancer survivors’ organization.

Overall, 69% of survey respondents had private insurance and 26% had Medicare. Of the patients surveyed, 94% had breast cancer surgery: 40.6% lumpectomy, 23.7% mastectomy, and 29.7% bilateral mastectomy; 34% also had breast reconstruction. Among those surveyed, 43% reported considering costs in their treatment decision. Of these, 29% considered costs when making surgical treatment decisions, including 14% who reported that costs were “extremely” important.

Despite the high levels of insurance coverage, 35% of the study participants reported a financial burden resulting from cancer treatment, ranging from “somewhat” burdensome to “catastrophic.” The median out-of-pocket cost for the study participants was $4,000, and 5% exceeded $40,000 in such costs, Dr. Greenup said. “The risk of financial harm and increased out-of-pocket costs to patients differed by surgery type,” with higher financial burdens seen in women who underwent bilateral mastectomy.

Cost was one of many factors survey participants reported considering when making surgical treatment decisions, but the most important factors were the opinions and advice of the medical team and the individual patient’s fear of recurrence. However, in lower-income women, cost factored more significantly in decision making. “In a subset of women who reported an annual income of $45,000 a year or less, cost of treatment gained importance and, interestingly, became more important than many variables we routinely discuss – for example, appearance of the breast, sexuality, avoiding radiation, and breast preservation,” Dr. Greenup said. “An income of $74,000 a year was the tipping point at which women reported incorporating costs into their cancer treatment decisions.”

She added that younger, minority women who did not have Medicare coverage were more likely to consider costs in breast cancer treatment decisions.

Most women surveyed (79%) said they preferred to know their out-of-pocket costs before they begin treatment, Dr. Greenup said, “and 40% believed that we as physicians should be considering out-of-pocket costs while making medical decisions.” However, 78% of those surveyed said they never discussed costs with their cancer team – despite American Society of Clinical Oncologists guidelines, she pointed out – and 35% said their treatment costs were higher than expected.

Dr. Greenup described the study population as “well engaged … with good insurance and strong educational background that likely does not reflect the general population.” The results may not be generalizable. “We expect that in a general cohort of women, our findings would be even more exaggerated,” she said.

The study points out the need to better understand how cost transparency may affect breast cancer treatment decisions, Dr. Greenup said. “As eligible women with breast cancer choose between surgical options, it’s important that we consider the potential risk of financial harm as we guide them through these difficult treatment decisions,” she said.

Dr. Greenup and her study coauthors reported having no financial disclosures.

op@frontlinemedcom.com

SOURCE: Greenup RA. SSO 2018, Abstract No. 24.