Identifying and prioritizing strategies for comprehensive liver cancer control in Asia

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Liver cancer is both common and burdensome in Asia. Effective liver cancer control, however, is hindered by a complex etiology and a lack of coordination across clinical disciplines. We sought to identify strategies for inclusion in a comprehensive liver cancer control for Asia and to compare qualitative and quantitative methods for prioritization.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Qualitative interviews (N = 20) with international liver cancer experts were used to identify strategies using Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis and to formulate an initial prioritization through frequency analysis. Conjoint analysis, a quantitative stated-preference method, was then applied among Asian liver cancer experts (N = 20) who completed 12 choice tasks that divided these strategies into two mutually exclusive and exhaustive subsets. Respondents' preferred plan was the primary outcome in a choice model, estimated using ordinary least squares (OLS) and logistic regression. Priorities were then compared using Spearman's Rho.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Eleven strategies were identified: <it>Access to treatments; Centers of excellence; Clinical education; Measuring social burden; Monitoring of at-risk populations; Multidisciplinary management; National guidelines; Public awareness; Research infrastructure; Risk-assessment and referral</it>; and <it>Transplantation infrastructure</it>. Qualitative frequency analysis indicated that <it>Risk-assessment and referral </it>(85%), <it>National guidelines </it>(80%) and <it>Monitoring of at-risk populations </it>(80%) received the highest priority, while conjoint analysis pointed to <it>Monitoring of at-risk populations </it>(p < 0.001), <it>Centers of excellence </it>(p = 0.002), and <it>Access to treatments </it>(p = 0.004) as priorities, while <it>Risk-assessment and referral </it>was the lowest priority (p = 0.645). We find moderate concordance between the qualitative and quantitative methods (rho = 0.20), albeit insignificant (p = 0.554), and a strong concordance between the OLS and logistic regressions (rho = 0.979; p < 0.0001).</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Identified strategies can be conceptualized as the ABCs of comprehensive liver cancer control as they focus on <it>Antecedents</it>, <it>Better care </it>and <it>Connections </it>within a national strategy. Some concordance was found between the qualitative and quantitative methods (e.g. <it>Monitoring of at-risk populations</it>), but substantial differences were also identified (e.g. qualitative methods gave highest priority to risk-assessment and referral, but it was the lowest for the quantitative methods), which may be attributed to differences between the methods and study populations, and potential framing effects in choice tasks. Continued research will provide more generalizable estimates of priorities and account for variation across stakeholders and countries.</p

Comparison of multiphase CT, FDG-PET and intra-operative ultrasound in patients with colorectal liver metastases selected for surgery.

Contains fulltext : 52091.pdf (publisher's version ) (Closed access)BACKGROUND: For patients with colorectal liver metastases, resection is the treatment of choice. Careful selection of these patients is crucial in order to reduce the chance of unexpected findings at laparotomy and abandoning further surgical intervention. Here, we evaluate the predictive value of CT and FDG-PET of the liver and extrahepatic findings compared to findings during laparotomy and 6 months follow-up. METHODS: 131 consecutive patients, selected for hepatic surgery for colorectal liver metastases by CT and FDG-PET, were evaluated prospectively. During surgery, the liver was assessed by intra-operative ultrasound, palpation and histology. RESULTS: In 127 patients (97%), CT was true-positive for liver metastases. In 3 patients, CT was false-positive and in 1 patient false-negative. In 126 patients (96%), FDG-PET was true-positive for liver metastases, in 2 patients FDG-PET was false-negative, in 3 patients true-negative (negative FDG-PET, false-positive CT). At laparotomy a total of 363 liver metastases was identified: 63 lesions 20 mm [124 (97%) CT-positive, 121 (95%) FDG-PET-positive]. CT and FDG-PET missed approximately 30% of the smaller liver lesions, resulting in a significant change in clinical management during surgery in only nine patients. CONCLUSIONS: CT and FDG-PET have a similar diagnostic yield for the identification of liver metastases; both modalities being adequate on a patient-basis but inadequate to detect the smallest of liver lesions. However, the clinical relevance of the latter is limited

Open versus laparoscopic left lateral hepatic sectionectomy within an enhanced recovery ERAS(R) programme (ORANGE II-trial): study protocol for a randomised controlled trial

Contains fulltext : 108907.pdf (publisher's version ) (Open Access)BACKGROUND: The use of lLaparoscopic liver resection in terms of time to functional recovery, length of hospital stay (LOS), long-term abdominal wall hernias, costs and quality of life (QOL) has never been studied in a randomised controlled trial. Therefore, this is the subject of the international multicentre randomised controlled ORANGE II trial. METHODS: Patients eligible for left lateral sectionectomy (LLS) of the liver will be recruited and randomised at the outpatient clinic. All randomised patients will undergo surgery in the setting of an ERAS programme. The experimental design produces two randomised arms (open and laparoscopic LLS) and a prospective registry. The prospective registry will be based on patients that cannot be randomised because of the explicit treatment preference of the patient or surgeon, or because of ineligibility (not meeting the in- and exclusion criteria) for randomisation in this trial. Therefore, all non-randomised patients undergoing LLS will be approached to participate in the prospective registry, thereby allowing acquisition of an uninterrupted prospective series of patients. The primary endpoint of the ORANGE II trial is time to functional recovery. Secondary endpoints are postoperative LOS, percentage readmission, (liver-specific) morbidity, QOL, body image and cosmetic result, hospital and societal costs over 1 year, and long-term incidence of incisional hernias. It will be assumed that in patients undergoing laparoscopic LLS, length of hospital stay can be reduced by two days. A sample size of 55 patients in each randomisation arm has been calculated to detect a 2-day reduction in LOS (90% power and alpha = 0.05 (two-tailed)).The ORANGE II trial is a multicenter randomised controlled trial that will provide evidence on the merits of laparoscopic surgery in patients undergoing LLS within an enhanced recovery ERAS programme. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00874224