Twelve-year outcomes of watchful waiting versus surgery of mildly symptomatic or asymptomatic inguinal hernia in men aged 50 years and older:a randomised controlled trial

Background: Inguinal hernia belongs to the most common surgical pathology worldwide. Approximately, one third is asymptomatic. The value of watchful waiting (WW) in patients with asymptomatic or mildly symptomatic inguinal hernia has been established in a few randomised controlled trials (RCTs). The aim of this study was to assess long-term outcomes of a RCT comparing WW and elective surgery.Methods: In the original study, men aged ≥50 years with an asymptomatic or mildly symptomatic inguinal hernia were randomly assigned to WW or elective repair. In the present study, the primary outcome was the 12-year crossover rate to surgery, secondary outcomes were time-to-crossover, patient regret, pain, quality of life and incarceration. Dutch Trial Registry: NTR629. Findings: Out of 496 originally analysed patients, 488 (98.4%) were evaluable for chart review (WW: n = 258, surgery: n = 230), and 200 (41.0%) for telephone contact (WW: n = 106, surgery: n = 94) between November 2021 and March 2022 with a median 12 years follow-up (IQR 9–14). After 12 years, the estimated cumulative crossover rate to surgery was 64.2%, which was higher in mildly symptomatic than in asymptomatic patients (71.7% versus 60.4%, HR 1.451, 95% CI: 1.064–1.979). Time-to-crossover was longer in asymptomatic patients (50% after 6.0 years versus 2.0 years, p = 0.019). Patient regret was higher in the WW group (37.7 versus 18.0%, p = 0.002), as well as pain/discomfort (p = 0.031). Quality of life did not differ (p = 0.737). In the WW group, incarceration occurred in 10/255 patients (3.9%). Interpretation: During 12-year follow-up, most WW patients crossed over to surgery, significantly earlier with mildly symptomatic hernia. Considering the relatively low incarceration rate, WW might still be an option in asymptomatic patients with a clear preference and being well-informed about pros and cons.</p

Twelve-year outcomes of watchful waiting versus surgery of mildly symptomatic or asymptomatic inguinal hernia in men aged 50 years and older:a randomised controlled trial

Background: Inguinal hernia belongs to the most common surgical pathology worldwide. Approximately, one third is asymptomatic. The value of watchful waiting (WW) in patients with asymptomatic or mildly symptomatic inguinal hernia has been established in a few randomised controlled trials (RCTs). The aim of this study was to assess long-term outcomes of a RCT comparing WW and elective surgery. Methods: In the original study, men aged ≥50 years with an asymptomatic or mildly symptomatic inguinal hernia were randomly assigned to WW or elective repair. In the present study, the primary outcome was the 12-year crossover rate to surgery, secondary outcomes were time-to-crossover, patient regret, pain, quality of life and incarceration. Dutch Trial Registry: NTR629. Findings: Out of 496 originally analysed patients, 488 (98.4%) were evaluable for chart review (WW: n = 258, surgery: n = 230), and 200 (41.0%) for telephone contact (WW: n = 106, surgery: n = 94) between November 2021 and March 2022 with a median 12 years follow-up (IQR 9–14). After 12 years, the estimated cumulative crossover rate to surgery was 64.2%, which was higher in mildly symptomatic than in asymptomatic patients (71.7% versus 60.4%, HR 1.451, 95% CI: 1.064–1.979). Time-to-crossover was longer in asymptomatic patients (50% after 6.0 years versus 2.0 years, p = 0.019). Patient regret was higher in the WW group (37.7 versus 18.0%, p = 0.002), as well as pain/discomfort (p = 0.031). Quality of life did not differ (p = 0.737). In the WW group, incarceration occurred in 10/255 patients (3.9%). Interpretation: During 12-year follow-up, most WW patients crossed over to surgery, significantly earlier with mildly symptomatic hernia. Considering the relatively low incarceration rate, WW might still be an option in asymptomatic patients with a clear preference and being well-informed about pros and cons. Funding: The initial trial was funded by the Netherlands Organisation for Health Research and Development (ZonMW). This long-term study did not receive funding.</p

Different outcome in node-positive breast cancer patients found by axillary ultrasound or sentinel node procedure

Background: The Z0011 trial initiated a paradigm shift in the axillary treatment of breast cancer patients with a positive sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB), disregarding patients with a positive ultrasound-guided lymph node biopsy (UGLNB). We examined whether relevant differences exist between these patients to determine if the conclusions of the ACOSOG Z0011 trial are applicable to UGLNB-positive patients. Methods: Patients diagnosed with invasive breast cancer in the Netherlands between January 2008 and December 2014 were selected from the Netherlands Cancer Registry. Results: A total of 11,820 cases were included: 9149 cases in the SLNB group and 2671 in the UGLNB group. Multivariate analyses showed that UGLNB-positive patients were older (p < 0.001), more likely to have a poorly differentiated tumor (p < 0.001), had a negative hormone receptor status (p < 0.001), and more often had extensive nodal involvement (p < 0.001). However, they were less likely to undergo adjuvant radiation (p = 0.004) or systemic therapy (p < 0.001). Even after adjusting for these factors, UGLNB-positive patients had a worse overall survival (HR = 1.38; 95% CI 1.23–1.56) than SLNB-positive patients. Conclusion: This nationwide retrospective study shows that young patients found positive by UGLNB have less favorable disease characteristics and a worse prognosis compared to patients with a positive SLNB. Selection by ultrasound plays an important role when axillary treatment strategies are considered. Hence, the conclusions of the Z0011 trial cannot unconditionally be applied to patients with a positive UGLNB

Patterns of Care in the Administration of Neo-adjuvant Chemotherapy for Breast Cancer. A Population-Based Study

Neo‐adjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) is used to facilitate radical surgery for initially irresectable or locally advanced breast cancer. The indication for NAC has been extended to clinically node negative (cN0) patients in whom adjuvant systemic therapy is foreseen. A population‐based study was conducted to evaluate the increasing use of NAC, breast conserving surgery (BCS) after NAC and timing of the sentinel node biopsy (SNB). All female breast cancer patients, treated in 10 hospitals in the Eindhoven Cancer Registry area in the Netherlands between January 2003 and June 2012 were included (N = 18,427). In total, 1,402 patients (7.6%) received NAC. The administration increased from 2.5% in 2003 to 13.0% in 2011 (p &lt; 0.001). Use of NAC increased from 0.5% to 2.3% for cT1 tumors, from 2.8% to 27.0% for cT2, from 30.6% to 70.9% for cT3, and from 40.5% to 58.1% for cT4 tumors (p &lt; 0.001). In cN0 patients, use of NAC increased from 1.0% to 4.4% and in clinically node positive patients from 12.0% to 57.5% (p &lt; 0.001). Downsizing of the tumor and BCS are achieved increasingly. In 2011, in three hospitals NAC was administered in &lt;10% of patients, in five hospitals in 10–15% and in two hospitals the proportion of patients receiving NAC was &gt;20% (p &lt; 0.001). Of the 1,402 patients with NAC, 495 patients underwent SNB, 91.5% of whom prior to NAC. In the Netherlands up to one in eight patients receive NAC. The administration of NAC and the percentage of BCS increased over the past decade, especially in cT2 tumors. Considerable hospital variation in the administration of NAC exists

Constructive Technology Assessment (CTA) as a tool in coverage with evidence\ud development: the case of the 70-gene prognosis signature for breast cancer diagnostics

Objectives:\ud Constructive Technology Assessment (CTA) is a means to guide early implementation of new developments in society, and can be used as an evaluation tool for Coverage with Evidence Development (CED). We used CTA for the introduction of a new diagnostic test in the Netherlands, the 70-gene prognosis signature (MammaPrint®) for node-negative breast cancer patients.\ud \ud Methods:\ud Studied aspects were (organizational) efficiency, patient-centeredness and diffusion scenarios. Pre-post structured surveys were conducted in fifteen community hospitals concerning changes in logistics and teamwork as a consequence of the introduction of the 70-gene signature. Patient-centeredness was measured by questionnaires and interviews regarding knowledge and psychological impact of the test. Diffusion scenarios, which are commonly applied in industry to anticipate on future development and diffusion of their products, have been applied in this study.\ud \ud Results:\ud Median implementation-time of the 70-gene signature was 1.2 months. Most changes were seen in pathology processes and adjuvant treatment decisions. Physicians valued the addition of the 70-gene signature information as beneficial for patient management. Patient-centeredness (n = 77, response 78 percent): patients receiving a concordant high-risk and discordant clinical low/high risk-signature showed significantly more negative emotions with respect to receiving both test-results compared with concordant low-risk and discordant clinical high/low risk-signature patients. The first scenario was written in 2004 before the introduction of the 70-gene signature and identified hypothetical developments that could influence diffusion; especially the “what-if” deviation describing a discussion on validity among physicians proved to be realistic.\ud \ud Conclusions:\ud Differences in speed of implementation and influenced treatment decisions were seen. Impact on patients seems especially related to discordance and its successive communication. In the future, scenario drafting will lead to input for model-based cost-effectiveness analysis. Finally, CTA can be useful as a tool to guide CED by adding monitoring and anticipation on possible developments during early implementation, to the assessment of promising new technologies

Constructive Technology Assessment (CTA) as a tool in coverage with evidence development: the case of the 70-gene prognosis signature for breast cancer diagnostics

Objectives: Constructive Technology Assessment (CTA) is a means to guide early implementation of new developments in society, and can be used as an evaluation tool for Coverage with Evidence Development (CED). We used CTA for the introduction of a new diagnostic test in the Netherlands, the 70-gene prognosis signature (MammaPrint®) for node-negative breast cancer patients. Methods: Studied aspects were (organizational) efficiency, patient-centeredness and diffusion scenarios. Pre-post structured surveys were conducted in fifteen community hospitals concerning changes in logistics and teamwork as a consequence of the introduction of the 70-gene signature. Patient-centeredness was measured by questionnaires and interviews regarding knowledge and psychological impact of the test. Diffusion scenarios, which are commonly applied in industry to anticipate on future development and diffusion of their products, have been applied in this study. Results: Median implementation-time of the 70-gene signature was 1.2 months. Most changes were seen in pathology processes and adjuvant treatment decisions. Physicians valued the addition of the 70-gene signature information as beneficial for patient management. Patient-centeredness (n = 77, response 78 percent): patients receiving a concordant high-risk and discordant clinical low/high risk-signature showed significantly more negative emotions with respect to receiving both test-results compared with concordant low-risk and discordant clinical high/low risk-signature patients. The first scenario was written in 2004 before the introduction of the 70-gene signature and identified hypothetical developments that could influence diffusion; especially the “what-if” deviation describing a discussion on validity among physicians proved to be realistic. Conclusions: Differences in speed of implementation and influenced treatment decisions were seen. Impact on patients seems especially related to discordance and its successive communication. In the future, scenario drafting will lead to input for model-based cost-effectiveness analysis. Finally, CTA can be useful as a tool to guide CED by adding monitoring and anticipation on possible developments during early implementation, to the assessment of promising new technologies

A Dutch Prediction Tool to Assess the Risk of Additional Axillary Non-Sentinel Lymph Node Involvement in Sentinel Node-Positive Breast Cancer Patients

The performance of previously developed models to predict non sentinel lymph node status for patients with sentinel lymph node-positive breast cancer was poor for our Dutch patient population. Therefore, a new model was developed that includes only 2 predictors, is easy to use, and can help clinicians and their patients in the clinical decision-making regarding axillary treatment. Background: Multiple predictive systems have previously been developed to identify the sentinel lymph node (SLN)-positive patients at low risk of additional axillary non-SLN involvement and for whom completion axillary lymph node dissection (ALND) could be avoided. However, previous studies showed that these tools had poor performance in Dutch patients with breast cancer, probably owing to variations in pathology settings and differences in population characteristics. The aim of the present study was to develop a predictive tool for the risk of non-SLN involvement in a Dutch population with SLN-positive breast cancer. Materials and Methods: The data from 513 patients with SLN-positive breast cancer at 10 participating hospitals, who had undergone ALND from January 2007 to December 2008 were studied. The uni- and multivariable associations of predictors for non-SLN metastases were analyzed, and a predictive model was developed. The discriminatory ability of the model was measured by the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) and the agreement between predicted probabilities and observed frequencies was visualized by a calibration plot. Results: A predictive model was developed that included the 2 strongest predictors: the size of the SLN metastases in millimeters and the presence of a negative sentinel lymph node. The model showed good discriminative ability (AUC, 0.75) and good calibration over the complete range of predicted probabilities. Conclusion: We have developed a tool to predict additional non-SLN metastases in Dutch patients with SLN-positive breast cancer that is easy to use in daily clinical breast cancer practice. (C) 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved

Use of 70-gene signature to predict prognosis of patients with node-negative breast cancer: a prospective community-based feasibility study (RASTER)

Background: A microarray-based 70-gene prognosis signature might improve the selection of patients with node-negative breast cancer for adjuvant systemic treatment. The main aims of this MicroarRAy PrognoSTics in Breast CancER (RASTER) study were to assess prospectively the feasibility of implementation of the 70-gene prognosis signature in community-based settings and its effect on adjuvant systemic treatment decisions when considered with treatment advice formulated from the Dutch Institute for Healthcare Improvement (CBO) and other guidelines. Methods: Between January, 2004 and December, 2006, 812 women aged under 61 years with primary breast carcinoma (clinical T1–4N0M0) were enrolled. Fresh tumour samples were collected in 16 hospitals in the Netherlands within 1 h after surgery. Clinicopathological factors were collected and microarray analysis was done with a custom-designed array chip that assessed the mRNA expression index of the 70 genes previously identified for the prognostic signature. Patients with a “good” signature were deemed to have a good prognosis and, therefore, could be spared adjuvant systemic treatment with its associated adverse effects, whereas patients with a “poor” signature were judged to have a poor prognosis and should be considered for adjuvant systemic treatment. Concordance between risk predicted by the prognosis signature and risk predicted by commonly used clinicopathological guidelines (ie, St Gallen guidelines, Nottingham Prognostic Index, and Adjuvant! Online) was assessed. Findings: Of 585 eligible patients, 158 patients were excluded because of sampling failure (n=128) and incorrect procedure (n=30). Prognosis signatures were assessed in 427 patients. The 70-gene prognosis signature identified 219 (51%) patients with good prognosis and 208 (49%) patients with poor prognosis. The Dutch CBO guidelines identified 184 patients (43%) with poor prognosis, which was discordant with those findings obtained with the prognosis signature in 128 (30%) patients. Oncologists recommended adjuvant treatment in 203 (48%) patients based on Dutch CBO guidelines, in 265 (62%) patients if the guidelines were used with the prognosis signature, and in 259 (61%) patients if Dutch CBO guidelines, prognosis signature, and patients' preferences for treatment were all taken into account. Adjuvant! Online guidelines identified more patients with poor prognosis than did the signature alone (294 [69%]), and discordance with the signature occurred in 160 (37%) patients. St Gallen guidelines identified 353 (83%) patients with poor prognosis with the signature and discordance in 168 (39%) patients. Nottingham Prognostic Index recorded 179 (42%) patients with poor prognosis with the signature and discordance in 117 (27%) patients. Interpretation: Use of the prognosis signature is feasible in Dutch community hospitals. Adjuvant systemic treatment was advised less often when the more restrictive Dutch CBO guidelines were used compared with that finally given after use of the prognosis signature. For the other guidelines assessed, less adjuvant chemotherapy would be given when the data based on prognosis signature alone are used, which might spare patients from adverse effects and confirms previous findings. Future studies should assess whether use of the prognosis signature could improve survival or equal survival while avoiding unnecessary adjuvant systemic treatment without affecting patients' survival, and further assess the factors that physicians use to recommend adjuvant systemic treatment