Evaluating Dissemination of Adequate Lymphadenectomy for Gastric Cancer in the USA
- 25 Downloads
Adequate lymphadenectomy (AL) of 15+ lymph nodes comprises an important component of gastric cancer surgical therapy. Despite endorsement by the National Comprehensive Cancer Network and the Committee on Cancer, initial adoption of this paradigm has been relatively slow. The current analysis sought to perform an adjusted time-trend evaluation of the factors associated with AL and its dissemination.
Utilizing the 2004–2015 National Cancer Database, 28,985 patients were identified who underwent gastrectomy for adenocarcinoma. An adjusted time-trend analysis was performed to estimate the adoption of AL overall. Multivariable logistic regression was utilized to assess factors associated with these observed trends. Interactions and stratified models determined disparate effects in vulnerable populations (older adults, ethnic minorities, low socioeconomic status).
The adjusted time-trend analysis demonstrated an overall 30% increase (28.8 to 58.7%) in receipt of AL (OR 1.10 increase/year; 95%CI 1.09–1.10) from 2004 to 2015. This trend persisted even after stratifying the models by age, race/ethnicity, and income (OR 1.07–1.12; p < 0.05). Slowest rates of adoption were seen amongst hospitals in the Midwest census region (OR 1.08, CI 1.06–1.90) and comprehensive community hospitals (OR 1.08, CI 1.06–1.91) and with African-American patients (OR 1.09, CI 1.06–1.11) (all p < 0.05).
This multi-center evaluation demonstrates increased adoption of AL during gastric cancer surgery in the USA overall and amongst vulnerable populations, although regional and racial disparities were observed. Future studies are needed to investigate reasons underlying racial and regional differences in receipt of AL.
KeywordsGastric Cancer Lymphadenectomy Outcomes Disparity Volume
The data used in the study are derived from a de-identified NCDB file. The American College of Surgeons and the Commission on Cancer have not verified and are not responsible for the analytic or statistical methodology employed, or the conclusions drawn from these data by the investigator.
Villano: conception and design, acquisition/analysis/interpretation of the data, drafting/revision, final approval; Zeymo: conception and design, acquisition/analysis/interpretation of the data, drafting/revision, final approval; McDermott: interpretation of the data, drafting/revision, final approval; Crocker: interpretation of the data, drafting/revision, final approval; Zeck: interpretation of the data, drafting/revision, final approval; Chan: analysis/interpretation of the data, drafting/revision, final approval; Shara: analysis/interpretation of the data, drafting/revision, final approval; Kim: analysis/interpretation of the data, drafting/revision, final approval; Al-Refaie: conception and design, acquisition/analysis/interpretation of the data, drafting/revision, final approval.
This work was supported by a grant from the Georgetown-Howard Universities Center for Clinical and Translational Science and The Lee Folger Foundation
- 7.Fleming I, Cooper J, Henson D, Al E. AJCC cancer staging manual (5th ed.) Philadelphia: Lippincott-Raven; 1997.Google Scholar
- 9.American College of Surgeons. CoC Quality of Care Measures. [Internet]. 2017 [cited 2017 Jun 19]. Available from: https://www.facs.org/quality-programs/cancer/ncdb/qualitymeasures
- 12.About the National Cancer Database [Internet]. [cited 2017 Nov 26]. Available from: https://www.facs.org/quality-programs/cancer/ncdb/about
- 13.R Core Team. R: A language and environment for statistical computing [Internet]. 2017. Available from: https://www.r-project.org/
- 14.Wickham H. ggplot2: Elegant graphics for data analysis. 1st editio. Springer Publishing Company; 2009.Google Scholar
- 15.Højsgaard S, Halekoh U. doBy: Groupwise Statistics, LSmeans, Linear Contrasts, Utilities. R package version [Internet]. 2016 [cited 2015 May 4]. Available from: https://cran.r-project.org/package=doBy
- 16.Harrell F. RMS: Regression Modeling Strategies. R package version 5.1–2 [Internet]. 2018. Available from: https://cran.r-project.org/package=rms
- 17.Ritter C. R2wd: Write MS-Word documents from R. R package version 1.5. [Internet]. 2012. Available from: https://cran.r-project.org/package=R2wd
- 18.Bilimoria KY, Talamonti MS, Wayne JD, et al. Effect of hospital type and volume on lymph node evaluation for gastric and pancreatic cancer. Arch Surg. 2008 Jul;143(7):671–8; discussion 678.Google Scholar
- 29.College of American Pathologists. Cancer Protocol Templates [Internet]. 2018 [cited 2018 Nov 3]. Available from: https://www.cap.org/protocols-and-guidelines/cancer-reporting-tools/cancer-protocol-templates
- 31.Howard JH, Hiles JM, Leung AM, et al. Race influences stage-specific survival in gastric cancer. Am Surg. 2015 Mar;81(3):259–67.Google Scholar
- 34.The Leapfrog Group. The Leapfrog Group: Surgical Volume [Internet]. 2018 [cited 2018 Jun 7]. Available from: http://www.leapfroggroup.org/ratings-reports/surgical-volume