Overtreatment is a cause of preventable harm and waste in health care. Little is known about clinician perspectives on the problem. In this study, physicians were surveyed on the prevalence, causes, and implications of overtreatment. 2,106 physicians from an online community composed of doctors from the American Medical Association (AMA) masterfile participated in a survey. The survey inquired about the extent of overutilization, as well as causes, solutions, and implications for health care. Main outcome measures included: percentage of unnecessary medical care, most commonly cited reasons of overtreatment, potential solutions, and responses regarding association of profit and overtreatment. The response rate was 70.1%. Physicians reported that an interpolated median of 20.6% of overall medical care was unnecessary, including 22.0% of prescription medications, 24.9% of tests, and 11.1% of procedures. The most common cited reasons for overtreatment were fear of malpractice (84.7%), patient pressure/request (59.0%), and difficulty accessing medical records (38.2%). Potential solutions identified were training residents on appropriateness criteria (55.2%), easy access to outside health records (52.0%), and more practice guidelines (51.5%). Most respondents (70.8%) believed that physicians are more likely to perform unnecessary procedures when they profit from them. Most respondents believed that de-emphasizing fee-for-service physician compensation would reduce health care utilization and costs. From the physician perspective, overtreatment is common. Efforts to address the problem should consider the causes and solutions offered by physicians.

The rarity and heterogeneity of sarcomas make performing appropriately powered studies challenging and magnify the significance of large databases in sarcoma research. Established large tumor registries and population‐based databases have become increasingly relevant for answering clinical questions regarding sarcoma incidence, treatment patterns, and outcomes. However, the validity of large databases has been questioned and scrutinized because of the inaccuracy and wide variability of coding practices and the absence of clinically relevant variables. In addition, the utilization of large databases for the study of rare cancers such as sarcoma may be particularly challenging because of the known limitations of administrative data and poor overall data quality. Currently, there are several large national cancer databases, including the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database, the National Cancer Data Base of the American College of Surgeons and the American Cancer Society, and the National Program of Cancer Registries of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. These databases are often used for sarcoma research, but they are limited by their dependence on administrative or billing data, the lack of agreement between chart abstractors on diagnosis codes, and the use of preexisting documented hospital diagnosis codes for tumor registries, which lead to a significant underestimation of sarcomas in large data sets. Current and future initiatives to improve databases and big data applications for sarcoma research include increasing the utilization of sarcoma‐specific registries and encouraging national initiatives to expand on real‐world, evidence‐based data sets.

Background: Patients undergoing surgery for soft tissue sarcoma have high morbidity rates, particularly after preoperative radiation therapy (RT). An enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) programme may improve perioperative outcomes in abdominal surgery. This study reported outcomes of an ERAS programme tailored to patients with soft tissue sarcoma. Methods: A prospective ERAS protocol was implemented in 2015 at a high-volume sarcoma centre. Patients treated within the ERAS programme from 2015 to 2018 were case-matched retrospectively with patients treated between 2012 and 2018 without use of the protocol, matched by surgical site, surgeon, sarcoma histology and preoperative RT treatment. Postoperative outcomes, specifically wound complications and duration of hospital stay, were reported. Results: In total, 234 patients treated within the ERAS programme were matched with 237 who were not. The ERAS group had lower wound dehiscence rates overall (2 of 234 (0·9 per cent) versus 31 of 237 (13·1 per cent); P < 0·001), after preoperative RT (0 of 41 versus 11 of 51; P = 0·004) and after extremity sarcoma surgery (0 of 54 versus 6 of 56; P = 0·040) compared with the non-ERAS group. Rates of postoperative ileus or obstruction were lower in the ERAS group (21 of 234 (9·9 per cent) versus 40 of 237 (16·9 per cent); P = 0·016) and in those with retroperitoneal sarcoma (4 of 36 versus 15 of 36; P = 0·007). Duration of hospital stay was shorter in the ERAS group (median 5 (range 0–36) versus 6 (0–67) days; P = 0·003). Conclusion: Treatment within an ERAS protocol for patients with soft tissue sarcoma was associated with lower morbidity and shorter hospital stay.

Purpose: The incidence of colorectal cancer (CRC) is increasing worldwide, and the greatest increase is in low- to middle-income countries, such as Ukraine. Better knowledge of epidemiology of CRC in Ukraine is needed to understand how best to decrease the burden of disease. Methods: The National Cancer Registry of Ukraine (NCRU) was queried for CRC incidence, mortality, stage, and treatment in Ukraine and assessed for regional variation from 1999 to 2015. Joinpoint analysis was used to analyze the trends. Results: The incidence of colon cancer increased from 10.6 to 13.3 occurrences per 100,000, which provided an average annual percent change (AAPC) of 1.48 (95% CI, 1.3 to 1.7; P < .05). The incidence of rectal and anal cancers also increased from 9.9 to 11.5 occurrences per 100,000, which provided an AAPC of 1.0 (95% CI, 0.8 to 1.3; P < .05). Mortality remained the same (AAPC, 0.1; 95% CI, −0.3 to 0.2; P = .4). The proportion of patients who received cancer-specific treatment increased from 54.6% to 68.5% for colon cancer and from 61% to 74.4% for rectal and anal cancers. Overall, 34.5% of patients with colon cancer and 27.5% of patients with rectal cancer died within a year of diagnosis in 2015. Great regional variations in 1-year mortality and treatment received were identified. Conclusion: The incidence of CRC in Ukraine is increasing. Despite stable mortality rates, many do not receive cancer-specific treatment, and a large proportion of patients die within a year of diagnosis. These findings illustrate the need to promote establishment of a screening program and to improve access to cancer-specific therapy in Ukraine.