ImportanceCancer screening deficits during the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic were found to persist into 2021. Cancer-related deaths over the next decade are projected to increase if these deficits are not addressed.ObjectiveTo assess whether participation in a nationwide quality improvement (QI) collaborative, Return-to-Screening, was associated with restoration of cancer screening.Design, Setting, and ParticipantsAccredited cancer programs electively enrolled in this QI study. Project-specific targets were established on the basis of differences in mean monthly screening test volumes (MTVs) between representative prepandemic (September 2019 and January 2020) and pandemic (September 2020 and January 2021) periods to restore prepandemic volumes and achieve a minimum of 10% increase in MTV. Local QI teams implemented evidence-based screening interventions from June to November 2021 (intervention period), iteratively adjusting interventions according to their MTVs and target. Interrupted time series analyses was used to identify the intervention effect. Data analysis was performed from January to April 2022.ExposuresCollaborative QI support included provision of a Return-to-Screening plan-do-study-act protocol, evidence-based screening interventions, QI education, programmatic coordination, and calculation of screening deficits and targets.Main Outcomes and MeasuresThe primary outcome was the proportion of QI projects reaching target MTV and counterfactual differences in the aggregate number of screening tests across time periods.ResultsOf 859 cancer screening QI projects (452 for breast cancer, 134 for colorectal cancer, 244 for lung cancer, and 29 for cervical cancer) conducted by 786 accredited cancer programs, 676 projects (79%) reached their target MTV. There were no hospital characteristics associated with increased likelihood of reaching target MTV except for disease site (lung vs breast, odds ratio, 2.8; 95% CI, 1.7 to 4.7). During the preintervention period (April to May 2021), there was a decrease in the mean MTV (slope, −13.1 tests per month; 95% CI, −23.1 to −3.2 tests per month). Interventions were associated with a significant immediate (slope, 101.0 tests per month; 95% CI, 49.1 to 153.0 tests per month) and sustained (slope, 36.3 tests per month; 95% CI, 5.3 to 67.3 tests per month) increase in MTVs relative to the preintervention trends. Additional screening tests were performed during the intervention period compared with the prepandemic period (170 748 tests), the pandemic period (210 450 tests), and the preintervention period (722 427 tests).Conclusions and RelevanceIn this QI study, participation in a national Return-to-Screening collaborative with a multifaceted QI intervention was associated with improvements in cancer screening. Future collaborative QI endeavors leveraging accreditation infrastructure may help address other gaps in cancer care.

From 2005 to 2009, rates of nipple-sparing mastectomy (NSM) increased by 202% in patients treated for breast cancer in the United States. 1 This trend toward decreased invasiveness is in part due to studies determining that the nipple-areolar complex (NAC) is associated with both a woman's body image and quality of life. 2 In addition, patient satisfaction is noticeably higher, especially when compared to skin sparing or modified radical mastectomy, and when nipple sensitivity was preserved. 3,4 Unfortunately, the rate of preservation or quality of residual nipple sensation remains low. 4 In a study by Djohan et al, 4 86% of patients said they would change at least one aspect of the NAC with sensation being most common. Although data exist regarding rates and quality of nipple sensation following NSM, few studies examined factors associatedwith losing nipple sensation. Instead, focus has been on risk factors for nipple necrosis including age, smoking, or incision type. 5,6 Consequently, in addition to detailing our institution's experience with patient satisfaction after NSM, we sought to describe patient and surgical characteristics affecting nipple sensation. We hypothesized that patient satisfaction would be high and factors associated with nipple necrosis would likewise contribute to decreased sensation.

No abstract

Brief Reports should be submitted online to www.editorialmanager.com/ amsurg. (See details online under ''Instructions for Authors''.) They should be no more than 4 double-spaced pages with no Abstract or sub-headings, with a maximum of four (4) references. If figures are included, they should be limited to two (2). The cost of printing color figures is the responsibility of the author.

Background and Objectives:Many risk factors have been identified in minimally invasive cholecystectomies that lead to higher complications and conversion rates. No study that we encountered looked at nonvisualization of the gallbladder (GB) during surgery as a risk factor. We hypothesized that nonvisualization was associated with an increased risk of complications and could be an early intraoperative identifier of a higher risk procedure. Recognizing this could allow surgeons to be aware of potential risks and to be more likely to convert to open for the safety of the patient.Methods:We looked at minimally invasive cholecystectomies performed at our institution from January 2015 through April 2016 and had the performing resident fill out a survey after the surgery. Outcomes were conversion rates, intraoperative complications, and blood loss and were analyzed via Pearson χ2 test or Mann-Whitney U test.Results:The primary outcome showed a conversion rate of 37% in nonvisualized GBs versus 0% in visualized (P = .001). Secondary outcomes showed significant differences in GB perforations (74% vs 13%, P = .001), omental vessel bleeding (16% vs. 0%, P = .005), and EBL (46 mL vs 29 mL, P = .001).Conclusions:Intraoperative nonvisualization of the GB after adequate positioning caused significantly increased risk of intraoperative complications and conversion. This knowledge could be useful during intraoperative assessment, to decide whether a case should be continued as a minimally invasive procedure or converted early to help reduce risk to the patient. Further randomized controlled studies should be performed to further demonstrate the value of this assessment.