Evaluating a Modular Decision Support Application For Colorectal Cancer Screening

BACKGROUND: There is a need for health information technology evaluation that goes beyond randomized controlled trials to include consideration of usability, cognition, feedback from representative users, and impact on efficiency, data quality, and clinical workflow. This article presents an evaluation illustrating one approach to this need using the Decision-Centered Design framework. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate, through a Decision-Centered Design framework, the ability of the Screening and Surveillance App to support primary care clinicians in tracking and managing colorectal cancer testing. METHODS: We leveraged two evaluation formats, online and in-person, to obtain feedback from a range primary care clinicians and obtain comparative data. Both the online and in-person evaluations used mock patient data to simulate challenging patient scenarios. Primary care clinicians responded to a series of colorectal cancer-related questions about each patient and made recommendations for screening. We collected data on performance, perceived workload, and usability. Key elements of Decision-Centered Design include evaluation in the context of realistic, challenging scenarios and measures designed to explore impact on cognitive performance. RESULTS: Comparison of means revealed increases in accuracy, efficiency, and usability and decreases in perceived mental effort and workload when using the Screening and Surveillance App. CONCLUSION: The results speak to the benefits of using the Decision-Centered Design approach in the analysis, design, and evaluation of Health Information Technology. Furthermore, the Screening and Surveillance App shows promise for filling decision support gaps in current electronic health records

Pain and Opioid Consumption After Laparoscopic Versus Open Gastrectomy for Gastric Cancer:A Secondary Analysis of a Multicenter Randomized Clinical Trial (LOGICA-Trial)

Background:Laparoscopic gastrectomy could reduce pain and opioid consumption, compared to open gastrectomy. However, it is difficult to judge the clinical relevance of this reduction, since these outcomes are reported in few randomized trials and in limited detail. Methods: This secondary analysis of a multicenter randomized trial compared laparoscopic versus open gastrectomy for resectable gastric adenocarcinoma (cT1-4aN0-3bM0). Postoperative pain was analyzed by opioid consumption in oral morphine equivalents (OME, mg/day) at postoperative day (POD) 1–5, WHO analgesic steps, and Numeric Rating Scales (NRS, 0–10) at POD 1–10 and discharge. Regression and mixed model analyses were performed, with and without correction for epidural analgesia. Results: Between 2015 and 2018, 115 patients in the laparoscopic group and 110 in the open group underwent surgery. Some 16 patients (14%) in the laparoscopic group and 73 patients (66%) in the open group received epidural analgesia. At POD 1–3, mean opioid consumption was 131, 118, and 53 mg OME lower in the laparoscopic group, compared to the open group, respectively (all p &lt; 0.001). After correcting for epidural analgesia, these differences remained significant at POD 1–2 (47 mg OME, p = 0.002 and 69 mg OME, p &lt; 0.001, respectively). At discharge, 27% of patients in the laparoscopic group and 43% patients in the open group used oral opioids (p = 0.006). Mean highest daily pain scores were between 2 and 4 at all PODs, &lt; 2 at discharge, and did not relevantly differ between treatment arms. Conclusion: In this multicenter randomized trial, postoperative pain was comparable between laparoscopic and open gastrectomy. After laparoscopic gastrectomy, this was generally achieved without epidural analgesia and with fewer opioids. Trial Registration: NCT02248519.</p

Laparoscopic versus open gastrectomy for gastric cancer, a multicenter prospectively randomized controlled trial (LOGICA-trial)

Background: For gastric cancer patients, surgical resection with en-bloc lymphadenectomy is the cornerstone of curative treatment. Open gastrectomy has long been the preferred surgical approach worldwide. However, this procedure is associated with considerable morbidity. Several meta-analyses have shown an advantage in short-term outcomes of laparoscopic gastrectomy compared to open procedures, with similar oncologic outcomes. However, it remains unclear whether the results of these Asian studies can be extrapolated to the Western population. In this trial from the Netherlands, patients with resectable gastric cancer will be randomized to laparoscopic or open gastrectomy. Methods: The study is a non-blinded, multicenter, prospectively randomized controlled superiority trial. Patients (≥18 years) with histologically proven, surgically resectable (cT1-4a, N0-3b, M0) gastric adenocarcinoma and European Clinical Oncology Group performance status 0, 1 or 2 are eligible to participate in the study after obtaining informed consent. Patients (n = 210) will be included in one of the ten participating Dutch centers and are randomized to either laparoscopic or open gastrectomy. The primary outcome is postoperative hospital stay (days). Secondary outcome parameters include postoperative morbidity and mortality, oncologic outcomes, readmissions, quality of life and cost-effectiveness. Discussion: In this randomized controlled trial laparoscopic and open gastrectomy are compared in patients with resectable gastric cancer. It is expected that laparoscopic gastrectomy will result in a faster recovery of the patient and a shorter hospital stay. Secondly, it is expected that laparoscopic gastrectomy will be associated with a lower postoperative morbidity, less readmissions, higher cost-effectiveness, better postoperative quality of life, but with similar mortality and oncologic outcomes, compared to open gastrectomy. The study started on 1 December 2014. Inclusion and follow-up will take 3 and 5 years respectively. Short-term results will be analyzed and published after discharge of the last randomized patient

Elevated colorectal cancer incidence among American Indian/Alaska Native persons in Alaska compared to other populations worldwide

ABSTRACTColorectal cancer (CRC) is a leading cancer worldwide; incidence varies greatly by country and racial group. We compared 2018 American Indian/Alaska Native (AI/AN) CRC incidence rates in Alaska to other Tribal, racial, and international population rates. AI/AN persons in Alaska had the highest CRC incidence rate among US Tribal and racial groups (61.9/100,000 in 2018). AI/AN persons in Alaska also had higher rates than those reported for any other country in the world in 2018 except for Hungary, where males had a higher CRC incidence rate than AI/AN males in Alaska (70.6/100,000 and 63.6/100,000 respectively). This review of CRC incidence rates from populations in the United States and worldwide showed that AI/AN persons in Alaska had the highest documented incidence rate of CRC in the world in 2018. It is important to inform health systems serving AI/AN persons in Alaska about policies and interventions that can support CRC screening to reduce the burden of this disease