Insurance Firms in Process of Industrialization

Background: Primary perineal wound closure after conventional abdominoperineal resection (cAPR) for rectal cancer has been the standard of care for many years. Since the introduction of neo-adjuvant radiotherapy and the extralevator APR (eAPR), oncological outcome has been improved, but at the cost of increased rates of perineal wound healing problems and perineal hernia. This has progressively increased the use of biological meshes, although not supported by sufficient evidence. The aim of this study is to determine the effectiveness of pelvic floor reconstruction using a biological mesh after standardized eAPR with neo-adjuvant (chemo) radiotherapy compared to primary perineal wound closure. Methods/Design: In this multicentre randomized controlled trial, patients with a clinical diagnosis of primary rectal cancer who are scheduled for eAPR after neo-adjuvant (chemo) radiotherapy will be considered eligible. Exclusion criteria are prior radiotherapy, sacral resection above S4/S5, allergy to pig products or polysorbate, collagen disorders, and severe systemic diseases affecting wound healing, except for diabetes. After informed consent, 104 patients will be randomized between standard care using primary wound closure of the perineum and the experimental arm consisting of suturing a biological mesh derived from porcine dermis in the pelvic floor defect, followed by perineal closure similar to the control arm. Patients will be followed for one year after the intervention and outcome assessors and patients will be blinded for the study treatment. The primary endpoint is the percentage of uncomplicated perineal wound healing, defined as a Southampton wound score of less than II on day 30. Secondary endpoints are hospital stay, incidence of perineal hernia, quality of life, and costs. Discussion: The BIOPEX-study is the first randomized controlled multicentre study to determine the additive value of using a biological mesh for perineal wound closure after eAPR with neo-adjuvant radiotherapy compared to primary perineal wound closure with regard to perineal wound healing and the occurrence of perineal hernia

Transanal minimally invasive surgery (TAMIS) versus endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) for resection of non-pedunculated rectal lesions (TRIASSIC study):study protocol of a European multicenter randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND: In the recent years two innovative approaches have become available for minimally invasive en bloc resections of large non-pedunculated rectal lesions (polyps and early cancers). One is Transanal Minimally Invasive Surgery (TAMIS), the other is Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection (ESD). Both techniques are standard of care, but a direct randomised comparison is lacking. The choice between either of these procedures is dependent on local expertise or availability rather than evidence-based. The European Society for Endoscopy has recommended that a comparison between ESD and local surgical resection is needed to guide decision making for the optimal approach for the removal of large rectal lesions in Western countries. The aim of this study is to directly compare both procedures in a randomised setting with regard to effectiveness, safety and perceived patient burden. METHODS: Multicenter randomised trial in 15 hospitals in the Netherlands. Patients with non-pedunculated lesions > 2 cm, where the bulk of the lesion is below 15 cm from the anal verge, will be randomised between either a TAMIS or an ESD procedure. Lesions judged to be deeply invasive by an expert panel will be excluded. The primary endpoint is the cumulative local recurrence rate at follow-up rectoscopy at 12 months. Secondary endpoints are: 1) Radical (R0-) resection rate; 2) Perceived burden and quality of life; 3) Cost effectiveness at 12 months; 4) Surgical referral rate at 12 months; 5) Complication rate; 6) Local recurrence rate at 6 months. For this non-inferiority trial, the total sample size of 198 is based on an expected local recurrence rate of 3% in the ESD group, 6% in the TAMIS group and considering a difference of less than 6% to be non-inferior. DISCUSSION: This is the first European randomised controlled trial comparing the effectiveness and safety of TAMIS and ESD for the en bloc resection of large non-pedunculated rectal lesions. This is important as the detection rate of these adenomas is expected to further increase with the introduction of colorectal screening programs throughout Europe. This study will therefore support an optimal use of healthcare resources in the future. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Netherlands Trial Register, NL7083 , 06 July 2018

Transanal minimally invasive surgery (TAMIS) versus endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) for resection of non-pedunculated rectal lesions (TRIASSIC study): Study protocol of a European multicenter randomised controlled trial

Background: In the recent years two innovative approaches have become available for minimally invasive en bloc resections of large non-pedunculated rectal lesions (polyps and early cancers). One is Transanal Minimally Invasive Surgery (TAMIS), the other is Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection (ESD). Both techniques are standard of care, but a direct randomised comparison is lacking. The choice between either of these procedures is dependent on local expertise or availability rather than evidence-based. The European Society for Endoscopy has recommended that a comparison between ESD and local surgical resection is needed to guide decision making for the optimal approach for the removal of large rectal lesions in Western countries. The aim of this study is to directly compare both procedures in a randomised setting with regard to effectiveness, safety and perceived patient burden. Methods: Multicenter randomised trial in 15 hospitals in the Netherlands. Patients with non-pedunculated lesions > 2 cm, where the bulk of the lesion is below 15 cm from the anal verge, will be randomised between either a TAMIS or an ESD procedure. Lesions judged to be deeply invasive by an expert panel will be excluded. The primary endpoint is the cumulative local recurrence rate at follow-up rectoscopy at 12 months. Secondary endpoints are: 1) Radical (R0-) resection rate; 2) Perceived burden and quality of life; 3) Cost effectiveness at 12 months; 4) Surgical referral rate at 12 months; 5) Complication rate; 6) Local recurrence rate at 6 months. For this non-inferiority trial, the total sample size of 198 is based on an expected local recurrence rate of 3% in the ESD group, 6% in the TAMIS group and considering a difference of less than 6% to be non-inferior. Discussion: This is the first European randomised controlled trial comparing the effectiveness and safety of TAMIS and ESD for the en bloc resection of large non-pedunculated rectal lesions. This is important as the detection rate of these adenomas is expected to further increase with the introduction of colorectal screening programs throughout Europe. This study will therefore support an optimal use of healthcare resources in the future. Trial registration: Netherlands Trial Register, NL7083, 06 July 2018

The Patient Navigator: Can a systematically developed online health information tool improve patient participation and outcomes related to the consultation in older patients newly diagnosed with colorectal cancer?

Background: Older cancer patients may search for health information online to prepare for their consultations. However, seeking information online can have negative effects, for instance increased anxiety due to finding incorrect or unclear information. In addition, existing online cancer information is not necessarily adapted to the needs of older patients, even though cancer is a disease often found in older individuals. Objective: The aim of this study was to systematically develop, implement and evaluate an online health information tool for older cancer patients, the Patient Navigator, providing information that complements the consultation with healthcare providers. Method: For the development and evaluation of the Patient Navigator, the four phases of the MRC framework were used. In the first and second phase the Patient Navigator was developed and pilot tested based on previous research and sub-studies. During the third phase the Patient Navigator was implemented in four Dutch hospitals. In the last phase, a pilot RCT was conducted to evaluate the Patient Navigator in terms of usage (observational tracking data), user experience (self-reported satisfaction, involvement, cognitive load, active control, perceived relevance of the tool), patient participation (observational data during consultation), and patient outcomes related to the consultation (questionnaire data regarding anxiety, satisfaction, and information recall). Recently diagnosed colorectal cancer patients (N = 45) were randomly assigned to the control condition (usual care) or the experimental condition (usual care + Patient Navigator). Results: The Patient Navigator was well used and evaluated positively. Patients who received the Patient Navigator contributed less during the consultation by using less words than patients in the control condition and experienced less anxiety two days after the consultation than patients in the control condition. Conclusion: Since the Patient Navigator was evaluated positively and decreased anxiety after the consultation, this tool is potentially a valuable addition to the consultation for patients. Usage of the Patient Navigator resulted in patients using less words during consultations, without impairing patients’ satisfaction, possibly because information needs might be fulfilled by usage of the Patient Navigator. This could create the possibility to personalize communication during consultations and respond to other patient needs

The Patient Navigator: Can a systematically developed online health information tool improve patient participation and outcomes related to the consultation in older patients newly diagnosed with colorectal cancer?

BACKGROUND: Older cancer patients may search for health information online to prepare for their consultations. However, seeking information online can have negative effects, for instance increased anxiety due to finding incorrect or unclear information. In addition, existing online cancer information is not necessarily adapted to the needs of older patients, even though cancer is a disease often found in older individuals. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to systematically develop, implement and evaluate an online health information tool for older cancer patients, the Patient Navigator, providing information that complements the consultation with healthcare providers. METHOD: For the development and evaluation of the Patient Navigator, the four phases of the MRC framework were used. In the first and second phase the Patient Navigator was developed and pilot tested based on previous research and sub-studies. During the third phase the Patient Navigator was implemented in four Dutch hospitals. In the last phase, a pilot RCT was conducted to evaluate the Patient Navigator in terms of usage (observational tracking data), user experience (self-reported satisfaction, involvement, cognitive load, active control, perceived relevance of the tool), patient participation (observational data during consultation), and patient outcomes related to the consultation (questionnaire data regarding anxiety, satisfaction, and information recall). Recently diagnosed colorectal cancer patients (N = 45) were randomly assigned to the control condition (usual care) or the experimental condition (usual care + Patient Navigator). RESULTS: The Patient Navigator was well used and evaluated positively. Patients who received the Patient Navigator contributed less during the consultation by using less words than patients in the control condition and experienced less anxiety two days after the consultation than patients in the control condition. CONCLUSION: Since the Patient Navigator was evaluated positively and decreased anxiety after the consultation, this tool is potentially a valuable addition to the consultation for patients. Usage of the Patient Navigator resulted in patients using less words during consultations, without impairing patients’ satisfaction, possibly because information needs might be fulfilled by usage of the Patient Navigator. This could create the possibility to personalize communication during consultations and respond to other patient needs

Endoscopy and MRI for restaging early rectal cancer after neoadjuvant treatment

AIM: Chemoradiotherapy has great potential to downstage rectal cancer. Response assessment has been investigated in locally advanced rectal cancer, but not in early stage rectal cancer. The aim is to characterize the diagnostic accuracy of endoscopy performed by surgical endoscopists compared to (diffusion-weighted) MRI only and a multimodal approach combining (diffusion-weighted) MRI and endoscopic information both analysed by an abdominal radiologist for response assessment in early rectal cancer after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients treated with neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy for early distal rectal cancer (cT1-3N0) followed by transanal endoscopic microsurgery were included. Three separate re-assessment groups were analysed for response assessment using endoscopic evaluation alone versus (DWI-)MRI alone versus the combination of endoscopy with (DWI-) MRI with focus on sensitivity and specificity and analysis using receiver operating characteristic curves. RESULTS: Three cohorts (N=36, N=25 and N=25, respectively) were analysed for response assessment. Of the endoscopy cohort, 16 of the 36 patients had a complete response. Areas under the curve were 0.69 (0.66-0.74; pooled sensitivity 55.3%, pooled specificity 80.0%). Agreement for scoring separate endoscopic features was poor to moderate. Of the (DWI-)MRI cohort, 11 of the 25 patients had a complete response. Area under the curve for (DWI-)MRI alone was 0.55 (sensitivity 72.7%, specificity 42.9%).The AUC improved to 0.68 (sensitivity 90.9%, specificity 75.0%) when (DWI)-MRI was combined with endoscopic information with 11 out of 25 patients with a complete response. Most accurate response assessment was made by combining endoscopy and diffusion weighted MRI with a high negative predictive value (90.9%). CONCLUSION: Good and complete responders after chemoradiation of early stage rectal cancer can be best assessed using a multimodality approach combining endoscopy and diffusion weighted MRI

Impact of a diverting ileostomy in total mesorectal excision with primary anastomosis for rectal cancer

Background: The role of diverting ileostomy in total mesorectal excision (TME) for rectal cancer with primary anastomosis is debated. The aim of this study is to gain insight in the clinical consequences of a diverting ileostomy, with respect to stoma rate at one year and stoma-related morbidity. Methods: Patients undergoing TME with primary anastomosis for rectal cancer between 2015 and 2017 in eleven participating hospitals were included. Retrospectively, two groups were compared: patients with or without diverting ileostomy construction during primary surgery. Primary endpoint was stoma rate at one year. Secondary endpoints were severity and rate of anastomotic leakage, overall morbidity rate within thirty days and stoma (reversal) related morbidity. Results: In 353 out of 595 patients (59.3%) a diverting ileostomy was constructed during primary surgery. Stoma rate at one year was 9.9% in the non-ileostomy group and 18.7% in the ileostomy group (p = 0.003). After correction for confounders, multivariate analysis showed that the construction of a diverting ileostomy during primary surgery was an independent risk factor for stoma at one year (OR 2.563 (95%CI 1.424–4.611), p = 0.002). Anastomotic leakage rate was 17.8% in the non-ileostomy group and 17.2% in the ileostomy group (p = 0.913). Overall 30-days morbidity rate was 37.6% in the non-ileostomy group and 56.1% in the ileostomy group (p < 0.001). Stoma reversal related morbidity rate was 17.9%. Conclusions: The stoma rate at one year was higher in patients with ileostomy construction during primary surgery. The incidence and severity of anastomotic leakage were not reduced by construction of an ileostomy. The morbidity related to the presence and reversal of a diverting ileostomy was substantial

Transanal Endoscopic Microsurgery with or without Completion Total Mesorectal Excision for T2 and T3 Rectal Carcinoma

Aim: Transanal endoscopic microsurgery (TEM) is used for the resection of large rectal adenomas and well or moderately differentiated T1 carcinomas. Due to difficulty in preoperative staging, final pathology may reveal a carcinoma not suitable for TEM. Although completion total mesorectal excision is considered standard of care in T2 or more invasive carcinomas, this completion surgery is not always performed. The purpose of this article is to evaluate the outcome of patients after TEM-only, when completion surgery would be indicated. Methods: In this retrospective multicenter, observational cohort study, outcome after TEM-only (n = 41) and completion surgery (n = 40) following TEM for a pT2–3 rectal adenocarcinoma was compared. Results: Median follow-up was 29 months for the TEM-only group and 31 months for the completion surgery group. Local recurrence rate was 35 and 11% for the TEM-only and completion surgery groups respectively. Distant metastasis occurred in 16% of the patients in both groups. The 3-year overall survival was 63% in the TEM-only group and 91% in the completion surgery group respectively. Three-year disease-specific survival was 91 versus 93% respectively. Conclusions: Although local recurrence after TEM-only for pT2–3 rectal cancer is worse compared to the recurrence that occurs after completion surgery, disease-specific survival is comparable between both groups. The lower unadjusted overall survival in the TEM-only group indicates that TEM-only may be a valid alternative in older and frail patients, especially when high morbidity of completion surgery is taken into consideration. Nevertheless, completion surgery should always be advised when curation is intended

Completion Total Mesorectal Excision: A Case-Matched Comparison With Primary Resection

Objectives:. The aim of this study was to compare the perioperative and oncological results of completion total mesorectal excision (cTME) versus primary total mesorectal excision (pTME). Background:. Early-stage rectal cancer can be treated by local excision alone, which is associated with less surgical morbidity and improved functional outcomes compared with radical surgery. When high-risk histological features are present, cTME is indicated, with possible worse clinical and oncological outcomes compared to pTME. Methods:. This retrospective cohort study included all patients that underwent TME surgery for rectal cancer performed in 11 centers in the Netherlands between 2015 and 2017. After case-matching, we compared cTME with pTME. The primary outcome was major postoperative morbidity. Secondary outcomes included the rate of restorative procedures and 3-year oncological outcomes. Results:. In total 1069 patients were included, of which 35 underwent cTME. After matching (1:2 ratio), 29 cTME and 58 pTME were analyzed. No differences were found for major morbidity (27.6% vs 19.0%; P = 0.28) and abdominoperineal excision rate (31.0% vs 32.8%; P = 0.85) between cTME and pTME, respectively. Local recurrence (3.4% vs 8.6%; P = 0.43), systemic recurrence (3.4% vs 12.1%; P = 0.25), overall survival (93.1% vs 94.8%; P = 0.71), and disease-free survival (89.7% vs 81.0%; P = 0.43) were comparable between cTME and pTME. Conclusions:. cTME is not associated with higher major morbidity, whereas the abdominoperineal excision rate and 3-year oncological outcomes are similar compared to pTME. Local excision as a diagnostic tool followed by completion surgery for early rectal cancer does not compromise outcomes and should still be considered as the treatment of early-stage rectal cancer