First National Effort to Optimize the Performance of Cancer Surgery by the American College of Surgeons Commission on Cancer and Cancer Surgery Standards Program Early Results After Implementation of the Operative Standards

Matthew H.G. Katz, Amanda B. Francescatti, Timothy W. Mullett, James Harris, Aaron D. Bleznak, Heidi Nelson, Ronald J. Weigel, Erin K. Reuter, Bell M. Pastore, Elizabeth C. Funk, Kelley Chan, Peter J. Carpenter, William R. Burns, Mediget Teshome, Timothy J. Vreeland, Kelly K. Hunt, Tina J. Hieken

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

1 Scopus citations

Abstract

Objective: To evaluate the first 3 years of compliance with the American College of Surgeons Commission on Cancer (CoC) Operative Standards. Background: CoC implemented evidence-based standards to improve the quality of sentinel lymph node biopsy and axillary lymph node dissection for breast cancer (operative standards 5.3 and 5.4), wide local excision for melanoma (5.5), colectomy for colon cancer (5.6), proctectomy for rectal cancer (5.7), and pulmonary resection for lung cancer (5.8) at ∼1400 programs treating >74% of US cancer patients. Each operative standard defines a technical element of the operation and structured documentation. Methods: Compliance data are from site visits conducted between January 1, 2022, and December 31, 2024 (implementation/site visits began in 2021/2022 for 5.7 and 5.8 and 2023/2024 for 5.3–5.6). Compliance with each operative standard was determined by evaluation of 7 operative (5.3–5.6) or pathology (5.7, 5.8) reports. Deficiency in technical performance, documentation, or both was considered noncompliance. Results: Reviewers conducted 974 site visits of Comprehensive Community (44%), Community (23%), Academic Comprehensive (16%), network (12%), NCI-Designated Comprehensive (4%), and other (1%) cancer programs. Program compliance rates ranged from 53% to 88%. Documentation noncompliance was more common for standards 5.3 to 5.6 (based on operative reports), and technical noncompliance was more common for 5.7 and 5.8 (based on pathology reports). Compliance significantly (P = 0.006) varied by program type for 5.8 (highest: 66% at NCI-designated Comprehensive programs; lowest: 37% at Community Cancer programs). Conclusions: Early compliance with CoC operative standards varied, indicating local and large-scale national quality improvement efforts are needed.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)371-381
Number of pages11
JournalAnnals of Surgery
Volume282
Issue number3
DOIs
StatePublished - Sep 1 2025

Bibliographical note

Publisher Copyright:
Copyright © 2025 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.

Funding

This work is supported in part by a grant from the National Cancer Institute R01CA288625 (co-investigator: Weigel). The authors would like to thank all the staff at CoC-accredited cancer programs for their efforts in implementing the operative standards. We believe these standards will benefit our patients and credit each staff member who played a role in their execution. We also thank Erica Goodoff, Senior Scientific Editor in the Research Medical Library at The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, for editing this article. This work is supported in part by a grant from the National Cancer Institute R01CA288625 (co-investigator: Weigel).

FundersFunder number
University of Texas Anderson Cancer Center
National Childhood Cancer Registry – National Cancer InstituteR01CA288625

    Keywords

    • american college of surgeons
    • commission on cancer
    • operative standards
    • quality
    • technique

    ASJC Scopus subject areas

    • Surgery

    Fingerprint

    Dive into the research topics of 'First National Effort to Optimize the Performance of Cancer Surgery by the American College of Surgeons Commission on Cancer and Cancer Surgery Standards Program Early Results After Implementation of the Operative Standards'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

    Cite this