Variation in the management of ductal carcinoma in situ in the UK: Results of the Mammary Fold National Practice Survey

Introduction Ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) accounts for approximately 10% of all newly-diagnosed breast cancers in the UK. The latest national guidelines were published in 2009 and may not reflect current best practice. We aimed to explore variation in the current management of DCIS to support the need for updated guidelines. Methods A national practice questionnaire was developed by the Mammary Fold Academic Committee (MFAC) focussing on the pre, intra and post-operative management of DCIS. Trainees at UK breast units were invited to complete the questionnaire at their multidisciplinary team meeting to provide a comprehensive picture of current national practice. Results 76 of 144 UK breast units (52.8%) participated in the survey. Variation was observed in radiological pre-operative assessment with only 33/76 units (43.4%) performing routine ultrasound assessment of the tumour or axilla. There was no clear consensus regarding indications for mastectomy; multifocality (38.2%) and extensive microcalcifications (34.2%) were the most frequent indications. 34/76 units (44.7%) offered nipple sparing mastectomy. 33/76 units (43.3%) perform sentinel node biopsy in the presence of a palpable/mass lesion and 51/76 (67.1%) at the time of mastectomy. The most widely accepted pathological radial margin remained 2 mm (36.8%). The commonest factors in decision-making for radiotherapy were tumour grade (51.3%) and size (35.5%). Only 12 units (15.8%) routinely used the Van Nuys Prognostic Index. Approximately half of all breast units offer clinical long-term follow-up. Discussion There is marked variation in the management of DCIS in the UK. Updated evidence-based guidelines may standardise practice and improve outcomes for patients

Critical care usage after major gastrointestinal and liver surgery: a prospective, multicentre observational study

Background: Patient selection for critical care admission must balance patient safety with optimal resource allocation. This study aimed to determine the relationship between critical care admission, and postoperative mortality after abdominal surgery. Methods: This prespecified secondary analysis of a multicentre, prospective, observational study included consecutive patients enrolled in the DISCOVER study from UK and Republic of Ireland undergoing major gastrointestinal and liver surgery between October and December 2014. The primary outcome was 30-day mortality. Multivariate logistic regression was used to explore associations between critical care admission (planned and unplanned) and mortality, and inter-centre variation in critical care admission after emergency laparotomy. Results: Of 4529 patients included, 37.8% (n=1713) underwent planned critical care admissions from theatre. Some 3.1% (n=86/2816) admitted to ward-level care subsequently underwent unplanned critical care admission. Overall 30-day mortality was 2.9% (n=133/4519), and the risk-adjusted association between 30-day mortality and critical care admission was higher in unplanned [odds ratio (OR): 8.65, 95% confidence interval (CI): 3.51–19.97) than planned admissions (OR: 2.32, 95% CI: 1.43–3.85). Some 26.7% of patients (n=1210/4529) underwent emergency laparotomies. After adjustment, 49.3% (95% CI: 46.8–51.9%, P<0.001) were predicted to have planned critical care admissions, with 7% (n=10/145) of centres outside the 95% CI. Conclusions: After risk adjustment, no 30-day survival benefit was identified for either planned or unplanned postoperative admissions to critical care within this cohort. This likely represents appropriate admission of the highest-risk patients. Planned admissions in selected, intermediate-risk patients may present a strategy to mitigate the risk of unplanned admission. Substantial inter-centre variation exists in planned critical care admissions after emergency laparotomies

Critical care usage after major gastrointestinal and liver surgery: a prospective, multicentre observational study

Background Patient selection for critical care admission must balance patient safety with optimal resource allocation. This study aimed to determine the relationship between critical care admission, and postoperative mortality after abdominal surgery. Methods This prespecified secondary analysis of a multicentre, prospective, observational study included consecutive patients enrolled in the DISCOVER study from UK and Republic of Ireland undergoing major gastrointestinal and liver surgery between October and December 2014. The primary outcome was 30-day mortality. Multivariate logistic regression was used to explore associations between critical care admission (planned and unplanned) and mortality, and inter-centre variation in critical care admission after emergency laparotomy. Results Of 4529 patients included, 37.8% (n=1713) underwent planned critical care admissions from theatre. Some 3.1% (n=86/2816) admitted to ward-level care subsequently underwent unplanned critical care admission. Overall 30-day mortality was 2.9% (n=133/4519), and the risk-adjusted association between 30-day mortality and critical care admission was higher in unplanned [odds ratio (OR): 8.65, 95% confidence interval (CI): 3.51–19.97) than planned admissions (OR: 2.32, 95% CI: 1.43–3.85). Some 26.7% of patients (n=1210/4529) underwent emergency laparotomies. After adjustment, 49.3% (95% CI: 46.8–51.9%, P<0.001) were predicted to have planned critical care admissions, with 7% (n=10/145) of centres outside the 95% CI. Conclusions After risk adjustment, no 30-day survival benefit was identified for either planned or unplanned postoperative admissions to critical care within this cohort. This likely represents appropriate admission of the highest-risk patients. Planned admissions in selected, intermediate-risk patients may present a strategy to mitigate the risk of unplanned admission. Substantial inter-centre variation exists in planned critical care admissions after emergency laparotomies

Body mass index and complications following major gastrointestinal surgery: A prospective, international cohort study and meta-analysis

Aim Previous studies reported conflicting evidence on the effects of obesity on outcomes after gastrointestinal surgery. The aims of this study were to explore the relationship of obesity with major postoperative complications in an international cohort and to present a metaanalysis of all available prospective data. Methods This prospective, multicentre study included adults undergoing both elective and emergency gastrointestinal resection, reversal of stoma or formation of stoma. The primary end-point was 30-day major complications (Clavien–Dindo Grades III–V). A systematic search was undertaken for studies assessing the relationship between obesity and major complications after gastrointestinal surgery. Individual patient meta-analysis was used to analyse pooled results. Results This study included 2519 patients across 127 centres, of whom 560 (22.2%) were obese. Unadjusted major complication rates were lower in obese vs normal weight patients (13.0% vs 16.2%, respectively), but this did not reach statistical significance (P = 0.863) on multivariate analysis for patients having surgery for either malignant or benign conditions. Individual patient meta-analysis demonstrated that obese patients undergoing surgery formalignancy were at increased risk of major complications (OR 2.10, 95% CI 1.49–2.96, P < 0.001), whereas obese patients undergoing surgery for benign indications were at decreased risk (OR 0.59, 95% CI 0.46–0.75, P < 0.001) compared to normal weight patients. Conclusions In our international data, obesity was not found to be associated with major complications following gastrointestinal surgery. Meta-analysis of available prospective data made a novel finding of obesity being associated with different outcomes depending on whether patients were undergoing surgery for benign or malignant disease