Staging laparoscopy in gastric cancer patients:From a Dutch nationwide Delphi consensus towards a standardized protocol

Background: Staging laparoscopy is a common diagnostic tool in gastric cancer, but its performance varies widely. The aim of this study was to gain Dutch nationwide consensus regarding the indications for and execution of staging laparoscopy in patients with gastric cancer. Methods: All surgeons in the Netherlands specialized in gastric cancer surgery (n = 52) were asked to participate in a Delphi consensus study. The study involved an initial questionnaire with a 3-point Likert scale, an online consensus meeting, and a second questionnaire using a 2-point Likert scale (agree/disagree). Consensus was defined as 70% or more agreement among participants. Results: In total, 45 experts completed both questionnaires (87% response rate). Consensus was reached on the indication to perform staging laparoscopy in cT3-4 or cN + or diffuse-type gastric cancer, including Siewert type III oesophagogastric junctional cancer. The experts agreed that if preoperative scans suggest infiltration of surrounding organs (cT4), the tumour's resectability should explicitly be investigated. Consensus was also reached for a systematic peritoneal cavity inspection according to Sugarbaker's Peritoneal Cancer Index (PCI) score. All regions should be inspected routinely, although the omental bursa may be inspected on indication. Aspiration of ascites or peritoneal washing should be performed for cytology. The experts agreed that restaging laparoscopy should be performed before resection in case of progressive disease on preoperative imaging. Without progression, global inspection was considered sufficient. Conclusions: The results of this Dutch nationwide Delphi consensus study exposed the variability of performing staging laparoscopy in patients with gastric cancer and provided the concept for a standardized protocol.</p

Oncological Safety and Potential Cost Savings of Routine vs Selective Histopathological Examination After Appendectomy: Results of the Multicenter, Prospective, Cross-Sectional FANCY Study

Objective: To investigate the oncological safety and potential cost savings of selective histopathological examination after appendectomy. Background: The necessity of routine histopathological examination after appendectomy has been questioned, but prospective studies investigating the safety of a selective policy are lacking. Methods: In this multicenter, prospective, cross-sectional study, inspection and palpation of the (meso)appendix was performed by the surgeon in patients with suspected appendicitis. The surgeon's opinion on additional value of histopathological examination was reported before sending all specimens to the pathologist. Main outcomes were the number of hypothetically missed appendiceal neoplasms with clinical consequences benefiting the patient (upper limit two-sided 95% confidence interval below 3:1000 considered oncologically safe) and potential cost savings after selective histopathological examination. Results: Seven thousand three hundred thirty-nine patients were included. After a selective policy, 4966/7339 (67.7%) specimens would have been refrained from histopathological examination. Appendiceal neoplasms with clinical consequences would have been missed in 22/4966 patients. In 5/22, residual disease was completely resected during additional surgery. Hence, an appendiceal neoplasm with clinical consequences benefiting the patient would have been missed in 1.01:1000 patients (upper limit 95% confidence interval 1.61:1000). In contrast, twice as many patients (10/22) would not have been exposed to potential harm due to re-resections without clear benefit, whereas consequences were neither beneficial nor harmful in the remaining seven. Estimated cost savings established by replacing routine for selective histopathological examination were 725,400 per 10,000 patients. Conclusions: Selective histopathological examination after appendectomy for suspected appendicitis is oncologically safe and will likely result in a reduction of pathologists' workload, less costs, and fewer re-resections without clear benefit