Background Radical gastrectomy is the cornerstone of the treatment of locally advanced gastric cancer. This study was designed to evaluate factors associated with a tumor-positive resection margin after gastrectomy and to evaluate the influence of hospital volume. Methods In this Dutch cohort study, patients with junctional or gastric cancer who underwent curative gastrectomy between 2011 and 2017 were included. The primary outcome was incomplete tumor removal after the operation defined as the microscopic presence of tumor cells at the resection margin. The association of patient and disease characteristics with incomplete tumor removal was tested with multivariable regression analysis. The association of annual hospital volume with incomplete tumor removal was tested and adjusted for the patient- and disease characteristics. Results In total, 2799 patients were included. Incomplete tumor removal was seen in 265 (9.5%) patients. Factors associated with incomplete tumor removal were: tumor located in the entire stomach (odds ratio (OR) [95% confidence interval (CI): 3.38 [1.91–5.96] reference: gastroesophageal junction), cT3, cT4, cTx (1.75 [1.20–2.56], 2.63 [1.47–4.70], 1.60 [1.03–2.48], reference: cT0-2), pN+ (2.73 [1.96–3.80], reference: pN−), and diffuse and unknown histological subtype (3.15 [2.14–4.46] and 2.05 [1.34–3.13], reference: intestinal). Unknown differentiation grade was associated with complete tumor removal (0.50 [0.30–0.83], reference: poor/undifferentiated). Compared with a hospital volume of < 20 resections/year, 20–39, and > 39 resections were associated with lower probability for incomplete tumor removal (OR 0.56 [0.42–0.76] and 0.34 [0.18–0.64]). Conclusions Tumor location, cT, pN, histological subtype, and tumor differentiation are associated with incomplete tumor removal. The association of incomplete tumor removal with an annual hospital volume of < 20 resections may underline the need for further centralization of gastric cancer care in the Netherlands. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1245/s10434-019-07381-0) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

BACKGROUND:Assessing frailty in patients with an acute trauma can be challenging. To provide trustworthy results, tools should be feasible and reliable. This systematic review evaluated existing evidence on the feasibility and reliability of frailty assessment tools applied in acute in-hospital trauma patients. METHODS:A systematic search was conducted in relevant databases until February 2020. Studies evaluating the feasibility and/or reliability of a multidimensional frailty assessment tool used to identify frail trauma patients were identified. The feasibility and reliability results and the risk of bias of included studies were assessed. This study was conducted and reported in line with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statement and registered in Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (ID: CRD42020175003). RESULTS:Nineteen studies evaluating 12 frailty assessment tools were included. The risk of bias of the included studies was fair to good. The most frequently evaluated tool was the Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS) (n = 5). All studies evaluated feasibility in terms of the percentage of patients for whom frailty could be assessed; feasibility was high (median, 97%; range, 49-100%). Other feasibility aspects, including time needed for completion, tool availability and costs, availability of instructions, and necessity of training for users, were hardly reported. Reliability was only assessed in three studies, all evaluating the CFS. The interrater reliability varied between 42% and >90% agreement, with a Krippendorff α of 0.27 to 0.41. CONCLUSION:Feasibility of most instruments was generally high. Other aspects were hardly reported. Reliability was only evaluated for the CFS with results varying from poor to good. The reliability of frailty assessment tools for acute trauma patients needs further critical evaluation to conclude whether assessment leads to trustworthy results that are useful in clinical practice.