BACKGROUND: Individuals from disadvantaged communities are among the millions of uninsured Americans gaining insurance under the Affordable Care Act. The extent to which health insurance can mitigate the effects of the social determinants of health on cancer care is unknown.METHODS: This study linked the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results registries to US Census data to study patients diagnosed with the 4 leading causes of cancer deaths between 2007 and 2011. A county‐level social determinant score was developed with 5 measures of wealth, education, and employment. Patients were stratified into quintiles, with the lowest quintile representing the most disadvantaged communities. Logistic regression and Cox proportional hazards models were used to estimate associations and cancer‐specific survival.RESULTS: A total of 364,507 patients aged 18 to 64 years were identified (134,105 with breast cancer, 106,914 with prostate cancer, 62,606 with lung cancer, and 60,882 with colorectal cancer). Overall, patients from the most disadvantaged communities (median household income, $42,885; patients below the poverty level, 22%; patients completing college, 17%) were more likely to present with distant disease (odds ratio, 1.6; P < .001) and were less likely to receive cancer‐directed surgery (odds ratio, 0.8; P < .001) than the least disadvantaged communities (median income, $78,249; patients below the poverty level, 9%; patients completing college, 42%). The differences persisted across quintiles regardless of the insurance status. The effect of having insurance on cancer‐specific survival was more pronounced in disadvantaged communities (relative benefit at 3 years, 40% vs 31%). However, it did not fully mitigate the effect of social determinants on mortality (hazard ratio, 0.75 vs 0.68; P < .001).CONCLUSIONS: Cancer patients from disadvantaged communities benefit most from health insurance, and there is a reduction in disparities in outcome. However, the gap produced by social determinants of health cannot be bridged by insurance alone. Cancer 2017;123:1219–1227. © 2016 American Cancer Society.

BACKGROUND: Increasing pressures to provide high‐quality evidence‐based cancer care have driven the rapid proliferation of clinical practice guidelines (CPGs). The quality and validity of CPGs have been questioned, and adherence to guidelines is relatively low. The purpose of this study was to critically evaluate the development process and scientific content of CPGs.METHODS: CPGs addressing management of rectal cancer were evaluated. We quantitatively assessed guideline quality with the validated Appraisal of Guidelines Research & Evaluation (AGREE II) instrument. We identified 21 independent processes of care using the nominal group technique. We then compared the evidence base and scientific agreement for the management recommendations for these processes of care.RESULTS: The quality and content of rectal cancer CPGs varied widely. Mean overall AGREE II scores ranged from 27% to 90%. Across the 5 CPGs, average scores were highest for the clarity of presentation domain (85%; range, 58% to 99%) and lowest for the applicability domain (21%; range, 8% to 56%). Randomized controlled trials represented a small proportion of citations (median, 18%; range, 13%‐35%), 78% of the recommendations were based on low‐ or moderate‐quality evidence, and the CPGs only had 11 references in common with the highest‐rated CPG. There were conflicting recommendations for 13 of the 21 care processes assessed (62%).CONCLUSIONS: There is significant variation in CPG development processes and scientific content. With conflicting recommendations between CPGs, there is no reliable resource to guide high‐quality evidence‐based cancer care. The quality and consistency of CPGs are in need of improvement. Cancer 2015;121:783–789. © 2014 American Cancer Society.

Background and Objective: The adoption of robotic surgery for general thoracic surgery has rapidly progressed over the last two decades from its application in basic operations to complex pathologies. As such, the purpose of this narrative review is to highlight the collective experience of tackling complex thoracic surgical operations with minimally invasive robotic solutions. Methods: Electronic searches of PubMed were conducted for each subtopic, using specific keywords and inclusion criteria. Once identified, the articles were screened through the abstract, introduction, results and conclusion for relevancy, and included based on a standard narrative review inclusion criteria. Key Content and Findings: The role of the robotic approach has increased in thoracic outlet syndrome, chest wall resection, tracheobronchomalacia, airway and sleeve lung surgery, lobectomy after neoadjuvant therapy, complex segmentectomy, giant paraesophageal hernia repair, esophagectomy and esophageal enucleation, mediastinal masses and thymectomy and lung transplantation. Robotic surgery has several advantages when compared to video-assisted and open thoracoscopic surgery. These include better pain control and aesthetic outcome, improved handling of complex anatomy, enhanced access to lymph nodes, and faster recovery rates. Although it is associated with longer operative time, robotic surgery has comparable morbidity rates. Conclusions: The robotic approach to complex thoracic problems is safe, effective, and associated with improved patient outcomes. To encourage wider adoption of robotic technology, increased training and expanded research efforts are essential, alongside improved worldwide access to this technology.