BACKGROUND: An increased incidence of neuroendocrine tumors (NETs) has been reported worldwide, but the reasons underlying this rise have not been identified. By assessing patterns of metastatic presentation, this study sought to examine the epidemiologic characteristics of NETs and the contribution of early‐stage detection to the rising incidence.METHODS: A population‐based retrospective cohort study was conducted with prospectively maintained databases linked at the Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences. Adult patients with a NET diagnosis from 1994 to 2009 in Ontario, Canada were included. The main outcomes included the overall and site‐specific incidence, proportion of metastatic disease, overall survival (OS), and recurrence‐free survival (RFS).RESULTS: Five thousand six hundred nineteen NET cases were identified. The incidence of NETs increased from 2.48 to 5.86 per 100,000 per year. Metastases were found in 20.8% at presentation and in another 38% after the initial diagnosis. The proportion of metastases at presentation decreased from 1994 to 2009 (from 29% to 13%). Therefore, although the incidence of all NETs increased, the overall incidence of metastases did not change (0.63‐0.69 per 100,000 per year). The 10‐year OS rate was 46.5%, and the RFS rate was 64.6%. In addition to the primary tumor site, independent predictors of worse OS included an advanced age (P < .0001), male sex (P < .0001), a low socioeconomic status (P < .0001), and rural living (P = 0.049).CONCLUSIONS: The incidence of NETs has markedly increased over the course of 15 years. This is the first study to provide evidence suggesting that the increase in the incidence of NETs may be due to increased detection. In addition to tumor characteristics, low income and rural residency portend worse survival for patients with NETs. Cancer 2015;121:589–597. © 2014 American Cancer Society.

Background: The ongoing pandemic is having a collateral health effect on delivery of surgical care to millions of patients. Very little is known about pandemic management and effects on other services, including delivery of surgery. Methods: This was a scoping review of all available literature pertaining to COVID-19 and surgery, using electronic databases, society websites, webinars and preprint repositories. Results: Several perioperative guidelines have been issued within a short time. Many suggestions are contradictory and based on anecdotal data at best. As regions with the highest volume of operations per capita are being hit, an unprecedented number of operations are being cancelled or deferred. No major stakeholder seems to have considered how a pandemic deprives patients with a surgical condition of resources, with patients disproportionally affected owing to the nature of treatment (use of anaesthesia, operating rooms, protective equipment, physical invasion and need for perioperative care). No recommendations exist regarding how to reopen surgical delivery. The postpandemic evaluation and future planning should involve surgical services as an essential part to maintain appropriate surgical care for the population during an outbreak. Surgical delivery, owing to its cross-cutting nature and synergistic effects on health systems at large, needs to be built into the WHO agenda for national health planning. Conclusion: Patients are being deprived of surgical access, with uncertain loss of function and risk of adverse prognosis as a collateral effect of the pandemic. Surgical services need a contingency plan for maintaining surgical care in an ongoing or postpandemic phase.

Higher institution and surgeon case volumes and designated comprehensive centers have been associated with improved short- and long-term outcomes for cancer surgery.^1-6 These data led to policy changes and regionalization of complex cancer surgery in many jurisdictions.^7-12 Although the volume-outcome association has been extensively studied for surgeons, data on such an association for other members of the care team remain scarce. Each critical step in the management of surgical patients is important in optimizing patient outcomes.¹³

With the recognition of early coagulopathy, trauma resuscitation has shifted toward liberal platelet transfusions. The overall benefit of this strategy remains controversial. Our objective was to compare the effects of a liberal use of platelet (higher platelet:RBC ratios) with a conservative approach (lower ratios) in trauma resuscitation. We systematically searched Medline, Embase, Web of Science, Biosis, Cochrane Central, and Scopus. Two independent reviewers selected randomized controlled trials and observational studies comparing two or more platelet:RBC ratios in trauma resuscitation. We excluded studies investigating the use of whole blood or hemostatic products. Two independent reviewers extracted data and assessed the risk of bias. Primary outcomes were early (in ICU or within 30 d) and late (in hospital or after 30 d) mortality. Secondary outcomes were multiple organ failure, lung injury, and sepsis. From 6,123 citations, no randomized controlled trials were identified. We included seven observational studies (4,230 patients) addressing confounders through multivariable regression or propensity scores. Heterogeneity of studies precluded meta-analysis. Among the five studies including exclusively patients requiring massive transfusions, four observed a lower mortality with higher ratios. Two studies considering nonmassively bleeding patients observed no benefit of using higher ratios. Two studies evaluated the implementation of a massive transfusion protocol; only one study observed a decrease in mortality with higher ratios. Of the two studies at low risk of survival bias, one study observed a survival benefit. Three studies assessed secondary outcomes. One study observed an increase in multiple organ failure with higher ratios, whereas no study demonstrated an increased risk in lung injury or sepsis. There is insufficient evidence to strongly support the use of a precise platelet:RBC ratio for trauma resuscitation, especially in nonmassively bleeding patients. Randomized controlled trials evaluating both the safety and efficacy of liberal platelet transfusions are warranted.

Importance: The surgeon-anesthesiologist teamwork and relationship is crucial to good patient outcomes. Familiarity among work team members is associated with enhanced success in multiple fields but rarely studied in the operating room.Objective: To examine the association between surgeon-anesthesiologist dyad familiarity—as the number of times working together—with short-term postoperative outcomes for complex gastrointestinal cancer surgery.Design, Setting, and Participants: This population-based retrospective cohort study based in Ontario, Canada, included adults undergoing esophagectomy, pancreatectomy, and hepatectomy for cancer from 2007 through 2018. The data were analyzed January 1, 2007, through December 21, 2018.Exposures: Dyad familiarity captured as the annual volume of procedures of interest done by the surgeon-anesthesiologist dyad in the 4 years before the index surgery.Main Outcomes and Measures: Ninety-day major morbidity (any Clavien-Dindo grade 3 to 5). The association between exposure and outcome was examined using multivariable logistic regression.Results: Seven thousand eight hundred ninety-three patients with a median age of 65 years (66.3% men) were included. They were cared for by 737 anesthesiologists and 163 surgeons who were also included. The median surgeon-anesthesiologist dyad volume was 1 (range, 0-12.2) procedures per year. Ninety-day major morbidity occurred in 43.0% of patients. There was a linear association between dyad volume and 90-day major morbidity. After adjustment, the annual dyad volume was independently associated with lower odds of 90-day major morbidity, with an odds ratio of 0.95 (95% CI, 0.92-0.98; P = .01) for each incremental procedure per year, per dyad. The results did not change when examining 30-day major morbidity.Conclusions and Relevance: Among adults undergoing complex gastrointestinal cancer surgery, increasing familiarity of the surgeon-anesthesiologist dyad was associated with improved short-term patient outcomes. For each additional time that a unique surgeon-anesthesiologist dyad worked together, the odds of 90-day major morbidity decreased by 5%. These findings support organizing perioperative care to increase the familiarity of surgeon-anesthesiologist dyads.