Patient reported cosmetic outcome after vacuum assisted excision of benign breast lesions:a cross-sectional study

OBJECTIVE: Better cosmetic outcome after vacuum assisted excision (VAE) compared to surgical excision of benign breast lesions is suggested in previous studies but has never been evaluated with validated outcome measures. In this study, patient reported cosmetic outcome after VAE was evaluated. METHODS: Patients who underwent VAE between July 2017 and December 2018 were invited to complete the cosmetic subscale of the Dutch Breast Cancer Treatment Outcome Scale, comparing the treated with the untreated breast. Response mode ranged from 1 (no difference) to 4 (large difference) and cosmetic outcome was calculated as the unweighted mean. Clinical outcomes included: tumor size, number of cores, complications, residual lesions and recurrences. RESULTS: Response rate was 73.4% (47 of 64 patients). Median tumor size was 15 mm (range 5-51 mm) and median number of cores 6.5 (range 1-85), complete excision was confirmed in all but two patients. Mean cosmetic outcome was good (mean score ≤1.75) in 74% of patients and no patients reported a poor cosmetic outcome (mean score >3.25). A hematoma occurred in five patients (one needed aspiration) and a skin rash in one patient, no patients developed an infection or seroma. CONCLUSION: In this study VAE is safe and effective for tumors up to 5 cm and patient reported cosmetic outcome was good. Patients with benign lesions could benefit from VAE as an alternative for surgical excision. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: A formal quantitative measurement of cosmetic outcome after vacuum assisted excision for benign breast lesions was still lacking. This study shows that this cosmetic outcome is overall good in benign lesions up to 5 cm

Treatment of early-stage breast cancer with percutaneous thermal ablation, an open-label randomised phase 2 screening trial:rationale and design of the THERMAC trial

INTRODUCTION: Breast cancer is the most frequently diagnosed malignancy worldwide but almost half of the patients have an excellent prognosis with a 5-year survival rate of 98%–99%. These patients could potentially be treated with thermal ablation to avoid surgical excision, reduce treatment-related morbidity and increase patients’ quality of life without jeopardising treatment effectiveness. Previous studies showed highest complete ablation rates for radiofrequency, microwave and cryoablation. However, due to heterogeneity among studies, it is unknown which of these three techniques should be selected for a phase 3 comparative study. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The aim of this phase 2 screening trial is to determine the efficacy rate of radiofrequency, microwave and cryoablation with the intention to select one treatment for further testing in a phase 3 trial. Additionally, exploratory data are obtained for the phase 3 trial. The design is a multicentre open-label randomised phase 2 screening trial. Patients with unifocal, invasive breast cancer with a maximum diameter of 2 cm without lymph node or distant metastases are included. Triple negative, Bloom-Richardson grade 3 tumours and patients with an indication for neoadjuvant chemotherapy will be excluded. Included patients will be allocated to receive one of the three thermal ablation techniques. Three months later surgical excision will be performed to determine the efficacy of thermal ablation. Treatment efficacy in terms of complete ablation rate will be assessed with CK 8/18 and H&E staining. Secondary outcomes include feasibility of the techniques in an outpatient setting, accuracy of MRI for complete ablation, patient satisfaction, adverse events, side effects, cosmetic outcome, system usability and immune response. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study protocol was approved by Medical Research Ethics Committee of the Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands. Study results will be submitted for publication in peer-reviewed journals. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NL9205 (www.trialregister.nl); Pre-results

Measuring performance on the Healthcare Access and Quality Index for 195 countries and territories and selected subnational locations: A systematic analysis from the Global Burden of Disease Study 2016

Background: A key component of achieving universal health coverage is ensuring that all populations have access to quality health care. Examining where gains have occurred or progress has faltered across and within countries is crucial to guiding decisions and strategies for future improvement. We used the Global Burden of Diseases, Injuries, and Risk Factors Study 2016 (GBD 2016) to assess personal health-care access and quality with the Healthcare Access and Quality (HAQ) Index for 195 countries and territories, as well as subnational locations in seven countries, from 1990 to 2016. Methods Drawing from established methods and updated estimates from GBD 2016, we used 32 causes from which death should not occur in the presence of effective care to approximate personal health-care access and quality by location and over time. To better isolate potential effects of personal health-care access and quality from underlying risk factor patterns, we risk-standardised cause-specific deaths due to non-cancers by location-year, replacing the local joint exposure of environmental and behavioural risks with the global level of exposure. Supported by the expansion of cancer registry data in GBD 2016, we used mortality-to-incidence ratios for cancers instead of risk-standardised death rates to provide a stronger signal of the effects of personal health care and access on cancer survival. We transformed each cause to a scale of 0-100, with 0 as the first percentile (worst) observed between 1990 and 2016, and 100 as the 99th percentile (best); we set these thresholds at the country level, and then applied them to subnational locations. We applied a principal components analysis to construct the HAQ Index using all scaled cause values, providing an overall score of 0-100 of personal health-care access and quality by location over time. We then compared HAQ Index levels and trends by quintiles on the Socio-demographic Index (SDI), a summary measure of overall development. As derived from the broader GBD study and other data sources, we examined relationships between national HAQ Index scores and potential correlates of performance, such as total health spending per capita. Findings In 2016, HAQ Index performance spanned from a high of 97\ub71 (95% UI 95\ub78-98\ub71) in Iceland, followed by 96\ub76 (94\ub79-97\ub79) in Norway and 96\ub71 (94\ub75-97\ub73) in the Netherlands, to values as low as 18\ub76 (13\ub71-24\ub74) in the Central African Republic, 19\ub70 (14\ub73-23\ub77) in Somalia, and 23\ub74 (20\ub72-26\ub78) in Guinea-Bissau. The pace of progress achieved between 1990 and 2016 varied, with markedly faster improvements occurring between 2000 and 2016 for many countries in sub-Saharan Africa and southeast Asia, whereas several countries in Latin America and elsewhere saw progress stagnate after experiencing considerable advances in the HAQ Index between 1990 and 2000. Striking subnational disparities emerged in personal health-care access and quality, with China and India having particularly large gaps between locations with the highest and lowest scores in 2016. In China, performance ranged from 91\ub75 (89\ub71-93\ub76) in Beijing to 48\ub70 (43\ub74-53\ub72) in Tibet (a 43\ub75-point difference), while India saw a 30\ub78-point disparity, from 64\ub78 (59\ub76-68\ub78) in Goa to 34\ub70 (30\ub73-38\ub71) in Assam. Japan recorded the smallest range in subnational HAQ performance in 2016 (a 4\ub78-point difference), whereas differences between subnational locations with the highest and lowest HAQ Index values were more than two times as high for the USA and three times as high for England. State-level gaps in the HAQ Index in Mexico somewhat narrowed from 1990 to 2016 (from a 20\ub79-point to 17\ub70-point difference), whereas in Brazil, disparities slightly increased across states during this time (a 17\ub72-point to 20\ub74-point difference). Performance on the HAQ Index showed strong linkages to overall development, with high and high-middle SDI countries generally having higher scores and faster gains for non-communicable diseases. Nonetheless, countries across the development spectrum saw substantial gains in some key health service areas from 2000 to 2016, most notably vaccine-preventable diseases. Overall, national performance on the HAQ Index was positively associated with higher levels of total health spending per capita, as well as health systems inputs, but these relationships were quite heterogeneous, particularly among low-to-middle SDI countries. Interpretation GBD 2016 provides a more detailed understanding of past success and current challenges in improving personal health-care access and quality worldwide. Despite substantial gains since 2000, many low-SDI and middle- SDI countries face considerable challenges unless heightened policy action and investments focus on advancing access to and quality of health care across key health services, especially non-communicable diseases. Stagnating or minimal improvements experienced by several low-middle to high-middle SDI countries could reflect the complexities of re-orienting both primary and secondary health-care services beyond the more limited foci of the Millennium Development Goals. Alongside initiatives to strengthen public health programmes, the pursuit of universal health coverage hinges upon improving both access and quality worldwide, and thus requires adopting a more comprehensive view-and subsequent provision-of quality health care for all populations

Measuring performance on the Healthcare Access and Quality Index for 195 countries and territories and selected subnational locations: A systematic analysis from the Global Burden of Disease Study 2016

Copyright © 2018 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. Background A key component of achieving universal health coverage is ensuring that all populations have access to quality health care. Examining where gains have occurred or progress has faltered across and within countries is crucial to guiding decisions and strategies for future improvement. We used the Global Burden of Diseases, Injuries, and Risk Factors Study 2016 (GBD 2016) to assess personal health-care access and quality with the Healthcare Access and Quality (HAQ) Index for 195 countries and territories, as well as subnational locations in seven countries, from 1990 to 2016. Methods Drawing from established methods and updated estimates from GBD 2016, we used 32 causes from which death should not occur in the presence of effective care to approximate personal health-care access and quality by location and over time. To better isolate potential effects of personal health-care access and quality from underlying risk factor patterns, we risk-standardised cause-specific deaths due to non-cancers by location-year, replacing the local joint exposure of environmental and behavioural risks with the global level of exposure. Supported by the expansion of cancer registry data in GBD 2016, we used mortality-to-incidence ratios for cancers instead of risk-standardised death rates to provide a stronger signal of the effects of personal health care and access on cancer survival. We transformed each cause to a scale of 0-100, with 0 as the first percentile (worst) observed between 1990 and 2016, and 100 as the 99th percentile (best); we set these thresholds at the country level, and then applied them to subnational locations. We applied a principal components analysis to construct the HAQ Index using all scaled cause values, providing an overall score of 0-100 of personal health-care access and quality by location over time. We then compared HAQ Index levels and trends by quintiles on the Socio-demographic Index (SDI), a summary measure of overall development. As derived from the broader GBD study and other data sources, we examined relationships between national HAQ Index scores and potential correlates of performance, such as total health spending per capita. Findings In 2016, HAQ Index performance spanned from a high of 97·1 (95% UI 95·8-98·1) in Iceland, followed by 96·6 (94·9-97·9) in Norway and 96·1 (94·5-97·3) in the Netherlands, to values as low as 18·6 (13·1-24·4) in the Central African Republic, 19·0 (14·3-23·7) in Somalia, and 23·4 (20·2-26·8) in Guinea-Bissau. The pace of progress achieved between 1990 and 2016 varied, with markedly faster improvements occurring between 2000 and 2016 for many countries in sub-Saharan Africa and southeast Asia, whereas several countries in Latin America and elsewhere saw progress stagnate after experiencing considerable advances in the HAQ Index between 1990 and 2000. Striking subnational disparities emerged in personal health-care access and quality, with China and India having particularly large gaps between locations with the highest and lowest scores in 2016. In China, performance ranged from 91·5 (89·1-93·6) in Beijing to 48·0 (43·4-53·2) in Tibet (a 43·5-point difference), while India saw a 30·8-point disparity, from 64·8 (59·6-68·8) in Goa to 34·0 (30·3-38·1) in Assam. Japan recorded the smallest range in subnational HAQ performance in 2016 (a 4·8-point difference), whereas differences between subnational locations with the highest and lowest HAQ Index values were more than two times as high for the USA and three times as high for England. State-level gaps in the HAQ Index in Mexico somewhat narrowed from 1990 to 2016 (from a 20·9-point to 17·0-point difference), whereas in Brazil, disparities slightly increased across states during this time (a 17·2-point to 20·4-point difference). Performance on the HAQ Index showed strong linkages to overall development, with high and high-middle SDI countries generally having higher scores and faster gains for non-communicable diseases. Nonetheless, countries across the development spectrum saw substantial gains in some key health service areas from 2000 to 2016, most notably vaccine-preventable diseases. Overall, national performance on the HAQ Index was positively associated with higher levels of total health spending per capita, as well as health systems inputs, but these relationships were quite heterogeneous, particularly among low-to-middle SDI countries. Interpretation GBD 2016 provides a more detailed understanding of past success and current challenges in improving personal health-care access and quality worldwide. Despite substantial gains since 2000, many low-SDI and middle- SDI countries face considerable challenges unless heightened policy action and investments focus on advancing access to and quality of health care across key health services, especially non-communicable diseases. Stagnating or minimal improvements experienced by several low-middle to high-middle SDI countries could reflect the complexities of re-orienting both primary and secondary health-care services beyond the more limited foci of the Millennium Development Goals. Alongside initiatives to strengthen public health programmes, the pursuit of universal health coverage hinges upon improving both access and quality worldwide, and thus requires adopting a more comprehensive view - and subsequent provision - of quality health care for all populations

Measuring performance on the Healthcare Access and Quality Index for 195 countries and territories and selected subnational locations: a systematic analysis from the Global Burden of Disease Study 2016.

BACKGROUND: A key component of achieving universal health coverage is ensuring that all populations have access to quality health care. Examining where gains have occurred or progress has faltered across and within countries is crucial to guiding decisions and strategies for future improvement. We used the Global Burden of Diseases, Injuries, and Risk Factors Study 2016 (GBD 2016) to assess personal health-care access and quality with the Healthcare Access and Quality (HAQ) Index for 195 countries and territories, as well as subnational locations in seven countries, from 1990 to 2016. METHODS: Drawing from established methods and updated estimates from GBD 2016, we used 32 causes from which death should not occur in the presence of effective care to approximate personal health-care access and quality by location and over time. To better isolate potential effects of personal health-care access and quality from underlying risk factor patterns, we risk-standardised cause-specific deaths due to non-cancers by location-year, replacing the local joint exposure of environmental and behavioural risks with the global level of exposure. Supported by the expansion of cancer registry data in GBD 2016, we used mortality-to-incidence ratios for cancers instead of risk-standardised death rates to provide a stronger signal of the effects of personal health care and access on cancer survival. We transformed each cause to a scale of 0-100, with 0 as the first percentile (worst) observed between 1990 and 2016, and 100 as the 99th percentile (best); we set these thresholds at the country level, and then applied them to subnational locations. We applied a principal components analysis to construct the HAQ Index using all scaled cause values, providing an overall score of 0-100 of personal health-care access and quality by location over time. We then compared HAQ Index levels and trends by quintiles on the Socio-demographic Index (SDI), a summary measure of overall development. As derived from the broader GBD study and other data sources, we examined relationships between national HAQ Index scores and potential correlates of performance, such as total health spending per capita

Interobserver Variation in the Assessment of Immunohistochemistry Expression Levels in HER2-Negative Breast Cancer: Can We Improve the Identification of Low Levels of HER2 Expression by Adjusting the Criteria? An International Interobserver Study

The classification of human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) expression is optimized to detect HER2-amplified breast cancer (BC). However, novel HER2-targeting agents are also effective for BCs with low levels of HER2. This raises the question whether the current guidelines for HER2 testing are sufficiently reproducible to identify HER2-low BC. The aim of this multicenter international study was to assess the interobserver agreement of specific HER2 immunohistochemistry scores in cases with negative HER2 results (0, 1+, or 2+/in situ hybridization negative) according to the current American Society of Clinical Oncology/College of American Pathologists (ASCO/CAP) guidelines. Furthermore, we evaluated whether the agreement improved by redefining immunohistochemistry (IHC) scoring criteria or by adding fluorescent in situ hybridization (FISH). We conducted a 2-round study of 105 nonamplified BCs. During the first assessment, 16 pathologists used the latest version of the ASCO/CAP guidelines. After a consensus meeting, the same pathologists scored the same digital slides using modified IHC scoring criteria based on the 2007 ASCO/CAP guidelines, and an extra "ultralow" category was added. Overall, the interobserver agreement was limited (4.7% of cases with 100% agreement) in the first round, but this was improved by clustering IHC categories. In the second round, the highest reproducibility was observed when comparing IHC 0 with the ultralow/1+/2+ grouped cluster (74.3% of cases with 100% agreement). The FISH results were not statistically different between HER2-0 and HER2-low cases, regardless of the IHC criteria used. In conclusion, our study suggests that the modified 2007 ASCO/CAP criteria were more reproducible in distinguishing HER2-0 from HER2-low cases than the 2018 ASCO/CAP criteria. However, the reproducibility was still moderate, which was not improved by adding FISH. This could lead to a suboptimal selection of patients eligible for novel HER2-targeting agents. If the threshold between HER2 IHC 0 and 1+ is to be clinically actionable, there is a need for clearer, more reproducible IHC definitions, training, and/or development of more accurate methods to detect this subtle difference in protein expression levels

Interobserver variation in the assessment of immunohistochemistry expression levels in HER2-negative breast cancer : can we improve the identification of low levels of HER2 expression by adjusting the criteria? An international interobserver study

The classification of human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) expression is optimized to detect HER2-amplified breast cancer (BC). However, novel HER2-targeting agents are also effective for BCs with low levels of HER2. This raises the question whether the current guidelines for HER2 testing are sufficiently reproducible to identify HER2-low BC. The aim of this multicenter interna-tional study was to assess the interobserver agreement of specific HER2 immunohistochemistry scores in cases with negative HER2 results (0, 1+, or 2+/in situ hybridization negative) according to the current American Society of Clinical Oncology/College of American Pathologists (ASCO/CAP) guidelines. Furthermore, we evaluated whether the agreement improved by redefining immuno-histochemistry (IHC) scoring criteria or by adding fluorescent in situ hybridization (FISH).We conducted a 2-round study of 105 nonamplified BCs. During the first assessment, 16 pathol-ogists used the latest version of the ASCO/CAP guidelines. After a consensus meeting, the same pathologists scored the same digital slides using modified IHC scoring criteria based on the 2007 ASCO/CAP guidelines, and an extra "ultralow" category was added.Overall, the interobserver agreement was limited (4.7% of cases with 100% agreement) in the first round, but this was improved by clustering IHC categories. In the second round, the highest reproducibility was observed when comparing IHC 0 with the ultralow/1+/2+ grouped cluste

Measuring performance on the Healthcare Access and Quality Index for 195 countries and territories and selected subnational locations: a systematic analysis from the Global Burden of Disease Study 2016

Background A key component of achieving universal health coverage is ensuring that all populations have access to quality health care. Examining where gains have occurred or progress has faltered across and within countries is crucial to guiding decisions and strategies for future improvement. We used the Global Burden of Diseases, Injuries, and Risk Factors Study 2016 (GBD 2016) to assess personal health-care access and quality with the Healthcare Access and Quality (HAQ) Index for 195 countries and territories, as well as subnational locations in seven countries, from 1990 to 2016

Incidence of severe critical events in paediatric anaesthesia (APRICOT): a prospective multicentre observational study in 261 hospitals in Europe

Background Little is known about the incidence of severe critical events in children undergoing general anaesthesia in Europe. We aimed to identify the incidence, nature, and outcome of severe critical events in children undergoing anaesthesia, and the associated potential risk factors. Methods The APRICOT study was a prospective observational multicentre cohort study of children from birth to 15 years of age undergoing elective or urgent anaesthesia for diagnostic or surgical procedures. Children were eligible for inclusion during a 2-week period determined prospectively by each centre. There were 261 participating centres across 33 European countries. The primary endpoint was the occurence of perioperative severe critical events requiring immediate intervention. A severe critical event was defined as the occurrence of respiratory, cardiac, allergic, or neurological complications requiring immediate intervention and that led (or could have led) to major disability or death. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01878760. Findings Between April 1, 2014, and Jan 31, 2015, 31â127 anaesthetic procedures in 30â874 children with a mean age of 6·35 years (SD 4·50) were included. The incidence of perioperative severe critical events was 5·2% (95% CI 5·0â5·5) with an incidence of respiratory critical events of 3·1% (2·9â3·3). Cardiovascular instability occurred in 1·9% (1·7â2·1), with an immediate poor outcome in 5·4% (3·7â7·5) of these cases. The all-cause 30-day in-hospital mortality rate was 10 in 10â000. This was independent of type of anaesthesia. Age (relative risk 0·88, 95% CI 0·86â0·90; p<0·0001), medical history, and physical condition (1·60, 1·40â1·82; p<0·0001) were the major risk factors for a serious critical event. Multivariate analysis revealed evidence for the beneficial effect of years of experience of the most senior anaesthesia team member (0·99, 0·981â0·997; p<0·0048 for respiratory critical events, and 0·98, 0·97â0·99; p=0·0039 for cardiovascular critical events), rather than the type of health institution or providers. Interpretation This study highlights a relatively high rate of severe critical events during the anaesthesia management of children for surgical or diagnostic procedures in Europe, and a large variability in the practice of paediatric anaesthesia. These findings are substantial enough to warrant attention from national, regional, and specialist societies to target education of anaesthesiologists and their teams and implement strategies for quality improvement in paediatric anaesthesia. Funding European Society of Anaesthesiology