Gastrectomy for cancer as currently practiced carries significant morbidity and mortality. Inclusion of additional major procedures increases these risks. The addition of lymphadenectomy was not associated with increased morbidity or mortality. Strategies are needed to optimize surgical outcomes to ensure delivery of multimodality therapy for advanced-stage disease.

In patients with incidental GBCA, port site metastases were associated with peritoneal disease and decreased survival. Port site resection was not associated with improved survival or disease recurrence and should not be considered mandatory during definitive surgical treatment.

Background In most jurisdictions, a minority of patients are discussed at multidisciplinary cancer conference (MCC) despite recommendations for such reviews. We assessed the impact of MCC review of gastrointestinal (GI) cancers at a stand-alone cancer center. Methods Patient data were prospectively collected on consecutive cases presented at a GI MCC during a 6-month period. Original treatment plans were collected confidentially before presentation and compared to post-MCC treatment plans. We defined changes in management plans as major (change in treatment modality) or minor (testing prior to original plan). Results A total of 149 cases were evaluated: 115 upper GI (gastric/small bowel—10 %, liver—32 %, pancreaticobiliary— 36 %), and 34 lower GI (23 %). Reasons for presentation were: questions regarding progression/metastases (44 %), management (26 %), diagnosis (21 %), pathology (15 %), and resectability (7 %). Physicians were certain of their original plans being the final recommendations in 84 % (n = 125). Change in management was recommended in 36 %; 72 % were major and 28 % were minor. Patients underwent all recommended treatments at our institution in 77 % of cases, a portion in 5 %, and no recommended treatments in 18 %. On multivariate analysis, physician degree of certainty for original management plan was not predictive of a change in management plan (p = 0.61). Conclusions Although certainty of prediscussion treatment plan is high, changes in treatment recommendations occurred in more than one-third of patients after GI MCC. This prospective study demonstrates the value of MCC in GI cancer sites, even at a stand-alone cancer center.

NAC for primary AS was well tolerated. Although there was no statistically significant survival benefit, NAC helped define who would benefit from surgical resection.

Studies have shown high-volume institutions have decreased mortality and increased survival for pancreatectomy. However, not all patients can travel to high-volume centers. Socioeconomic factors may influence treatment decisions. The goal of this study is to examine socioeconomic factors that determine where a patient is treated and how that location affects outcome. This is a retrospective study of the National Cancer Database of patients diagnosed with pancreatic cancer from 2004 to 2014. The primary outcome was to examine socioeconomic factors that predicted where a patient underwent their pancreatectomy. Patients treated at academic programs (APs) had to travel a mean distance of 80.9 miles, whereas patients treated at community programs (CPs) had to travel 31.7 miles ( P < 0.0001). Spanish and Hispanic patients were less likely to travel to an AP (69% had surgery at an AP versus 76% of non-Hispanic patients, P < 0.001). Patients with higher comorbidities were also more likely to have care at CPs. Patients who had pancreatic cancer surgery at CPs were more likely to be Hispanic or with higher medical comorbidities. Those who had surgery at AP traveled further distances but had better perioperative outcomes and had an improvement in overall survival.