The impact of performing gastric cancer surgery during holiday periods. A population-based study using Dutch upper gastrointestinal cancer audit (DUCA) data

Existing literature suggests inferior quality of oncologic surgery during holiday periods. This study aimed to investigate the impact of holiday periods on surgical treatment of gastric cancer in the Netherlands. This nationwide study included all gastric cancer patients undergoing potentially curative surgery registered in the Dutch Upper Gastrointestinal Cancer Audit (DUCA). For each patient it was established whether they underwent surgery during or outside the 11 Dutch holiday weeks, based on date and region of surgery. Separate, single-day holidays were not included. Baseline and treatment characteristics were compared using descriptive statistics. Time from diagnosis to treatment and short-term surgical outcomes were compared using multilevel multivariable logistic regression analyses. To prevent bias from recent advancements, analyses were repeated in a recent cohort of patients (2015-2018). Between 2011-2018, 3440 patients were included in the DUCA. Some 555 (16.1%) patients underwent surgery during 11 holiday weeks. There were no differences in patient, tumor and treatment characteristics and time to treatment between holidays and non-holidays. Tumor-positive resection margins (R1/R2 vs R0) occurred more frequent during holidays (aOR:1.47, 95%CI:1.07-2.04). Subgroup analyses in a recent cohort of patients also found higher tumor-positive resection margins (aOR:1.59, 95%CI:1.01-2.43) and higher failure-to-rescue rates (aOR:2.55, 95%CI:1.18-5.49) during holidays. Even though time to treatment and patient, tumor and treatment characteristics were comparable between holidays and non-holidays, tumor-positive resection margin and failure to-rescue rates were higher during holidays. This suggests that steps must be taken to keep specialized and dedicated gastric cancer expertise up to standard during holiday periods. (C)& nbsp;2022 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Inc.& nbsp;& nbsp

Postoperative intensive care unit stay after minimally invasive esophagectomy shows large hospital variation:Results from the Dutch Upper Gastrointestinal Cancer Audit

Item does not contain fulltextINTRODUCTION: The value of routine intensive care unit (ICU) admission after minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) has been questioned. This study aimed to investigate Dutch hospital variation regarding length of direct postoperative ICU stay, and the impact of this hospital variation on short-term surgical outcomes. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients registered in the Dutch Upper Gastrointestinal Cancer Audit (DUCA) undergoing curative MIE were included. Length of direct postoperative ICU stay was dichotomized around the national median into short ICU stay ( ≤ 1 day) and long ICU stay ( > 1 day). A case-mix corrected funnel plot based on multivariable logistic regression analyses investigated hospital variation. The impact of this hospital variation on short-term surgical outcomes was investigated using multilevel multivariable logistic regression analyses. RESULTS: Between 2017 and 2019, 2110 patients from 16 hospitals were included. Median length of postoperative ICU stay was 1 day [hospital variation: 0-4]. The percentage of short ICU stay ranged from 0 to 91% among hospitals. Corrected for case-mix, 7 hospitals had statistically significantly higher short ICU stay rates and 6 hospitals had lower rates. ICU readmission, in-hospital/30-day mortality, failure to rescue, postoperative pneumonia, cardiac complications and anastomotic leakage were not associated with hospital variation in length of ICU stay. Total length of hospital stay was significantly shorter in hospitals with relatively short ICU stay. CONCLUSION: This study showed significant hospital variation in postoperative length of ICU stay after MIE. Short ICU stay was associated with shorter overall hospital admission and did not negatively impact short-term surgical outcomes. More selected use of ICU resources could result in a national significant cost reduction

Outcomes After Major Surgical Procedures in Octogenarians:A Nationwide Cohort Study

Introduction: Aging of the worldwide population has been observed, and postoperative outcomes could be worse in elderly patients. This nationwide study assessed trends in number of surgical resections in octogenarians regarding various major surgical procedures and associated postoperative outcomes. Methods: All patients who underwent surgery between 2014 and 2018 were included from Dutch nationwide quality registries regarding esophageal, stomach, pancreas, colorectal liver metastases, colorectal cancer, lung cancer and abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAA). For each quality registry, the number of patients who were 80 years or older (octogenarians) was calculated per year. Postoperative outcomes were length of stay (LOS), 30 day major morbidity and 30 day mortality between octogenarians and younger patients. Results: No increase in absolute number and proportion of octogenarians that underwent surgery was observed. Median LOS was higher in octogenarians who underwent surgery for colorectal cancer, colorectal liver metastases, lung cancer, pancreatic disease and esophageal cancer. 30 day major morbidity was higher in octogenarians who underwent surgery for colon cancer, esophageal cancer and elective AAA-repair. 30 day mortality was higher in octogenarians who underwent surgery for colorectal cancer, lung cancer, stomach cancer, pancreatic disease, esophageal cancer and elective AAA-repair. Median LOS decreased between 2014 and 2018 in octogenarians who underwent surgery for stomach cancer and colorectal cancer. 30 day major morbidity decreased between 2014 and 2018 in octogenarians who underwent surgery for colon cancer. No trends were observed in octogenarians regarding 30 day mortality between 2014 and 2018. Conclusion: No increase over time in absolute number and proportion of octogenarians that underwent major surgery was observed in the Netherlands. Postoperative outcomes were worse in octogenarians

Postoperative intensive care unit stay after minimally invasive esophagectomy shows large hospital variation. Results from the Dutch Upper Gastrointestinal Cancer Audit

Introduction: The value of routine intensive care unit (ICU) admission after minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) has been questioned. This study aimed to investigate Dutch hospital variation regarding length of direct postoperative ICU stay, and the impact of this hospital variation on short-term surgical outcomes. Materials and methods: Patients registered in the Dutch Upper Gastrointestinal Cancer Audit (DUCA) undergoing curative MIE were included. Length of direct postoperative ICU stay was dichotomized around the national median into short ICU stay ( ≤ 1 day) and long ICU stay ( > 1 day). A case-mix corrected funnel plot based on multivariable logistic regression analyses investigated hospital variation. The impact of this hospital variation on short-term surgical outcomes was investigated using multilevel multivariable logistic regression analyses. Results: Between 2017 and 2019, 2110 patients from 16 hospitals were included. Median length of postoperative ICU stay was 1 day [hospital variation: 0–4]. The percentage of short ICU stay ranged from 0 to 91% among hospitals. Corrected for case-mix, 7 hospitals had statistically significantly higher short ICU stay rates and 6 hospitals had lower rates. ICU readmission, in-hospital/30-day mortality, failure to rescue, postoperative pneumonia, cardiac complications and anastomotic leakage were not associated with hospital variation in length of ICU stay. Total length of hospital stay was significantly shorter in hospitals with relatively short ICU stay. Conclusion: This study showed significant hospital variation in postoperative length of ICU stay after MIE. Short ICU stay was associated with shorter overall hospital admission and did not negatively impact short-term surgical outcomes. More selected use of ICU resources could result in a national significant cost reduction

Adenocarcinoma of the gastro-esophageal junction: Is centralization policy always a good idea?

This study aims to review the available literature on the volume-outcome relationship in esophageal cancer. Given the controversies surrounding the treatment of gastro-esophageal junction (GEJ) cancer this review focusses on these specific tumors. Literature shows that staging of esophageal cancer should be performed by dedicated, specialized radiologists and endoscopists. This certainly applies to GEJ tumors since slight staging differences have major treatment impact. Since early neoplastic signs are subtle, state-of-the-art endoscopes and sufficient endoscopist and pathologist expertise are necessary for the treatment of Barret's dysplasia or early cancer. In addition, given the possible complications of endoscopic resections, an expert center having surgical and endoscopic experience of treating complications is advisable. Most literature focusses on the relationship between hospital resection volume and surgical postoperative mortality and long-term survival. Several large meta-analyses show clear survival benefit and lower postoperative mortality rates in high-volume hospitals. The included literature was however heterogeneous with definitions of high-volume hospitals ranging from 2.33 to as much as 87 annual esophagectomies. Hospital volume seems to positively affect total esophageal cancer related costs. Literature also suggests centralization is necessary up to a certain threshold but not infinitely; a plateau might be reached in the volume-outcome relationship at an annual hospital volume of 50 or 60. However, more evidence is necessary to determine optimal cut-off values. Several studies suggest that much of the hospital volume benefit is explained by higher surgeon volume in high-volume hospitals, but the extent remains a matter of debate. Also, in the palliative setting a survival benefit of being treated in high-volume centers has been shown. The results of this review underline the importance of centralization of all aspects of the multimodal treatment of gastro-esophageal cancer. Especially for GEJ carcinomas highly specialized medical personnel is necessary. However, given the heterogeneity of the volume-outcome literature, clear international volume thresholds are difficult to establish

Surgical therapy of esophageal adenocarcinoma—Current standards and future perspectives

Transthoracic esophagectomy is currently the predominant curative treatment option for resectable esophageal adenocarcinoma. The majority of carcinomas present as locally advanced tumors requiring multimodal strategies with either neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy or perioperative chemotherapy alone. Minimally invasive, including robotic, techniques are increasingly applied with a broad spectrum of technical variations existing for the oncological resection as well as gastric reconstruction. At the present, intrathoracic esophagogastrostomy is the preferred technique of reconstruction (Ivor Lewis esophagectomy). With standardized surgical procedures, a complete resection of the primary tumor can be achieved in almost 95% of patients. Even in expert centers, postoperative morbidity remains high, with an overall complication rate of 50–60%, whereas 30-and 90-day mortality are reported to be <2% and <6%, respectively. Due to the complexity of transthoracic esophagetomy and its associated morbidity, esophageal surgery is recommended to be performed in specialized centers with an appropriate caseload yet to be defined. In order to reduce postoperative morbidity, the selection of patients, preoperative rehabilitation and postoperative fast-track concepts are feasible strategies of perioperative management. Future directives aim to further centralize esophageal services, to individualize surgical treatment for high-risk patients and to implement intraoperative imaging modalities modifying the oncological extent of resection and facilitating surgical reconstruction

Association between Surgical Patient Selection and Hospital Variation in Failure to Cure in Esophageal Cancer Surgery: A Nationwide Cohort Study

Introduction: Failure to cure describes: (1) nonresectional ("open-close") surgery, (2) non-radical surgery (R1-R2), and/or (3) postoperative mortality. This study aimed to investigate whether hospitals offering surgery to a large proportion of patients have higher failure-to-cure rates than hospitals operating fewer patients. Methods: From the Netherlands Cancer Registry, all cT1-cT4a/cTx-any cN-cM0 esophageal cancer patients diagnosed in 2015-2018 were included. For each center, the expected (E) proportion of patients undergoing surgery was established and divided by the observed (O) proportion. Hospitals were categorized into three groups: (1) hospitals treating relatively many patients with surgery, (2) average hospitals, and (3) hospitals treating relatively few patients with surgery. Multilevel multivariable regression investigated the association between these hospital groups and failure to cure. Results: Some 3,437 (53.2%) of 6,457 patients underwent surgery, ranging from 45 to 64% among 16 hospitals. The failure-to-cure rate was 15.0% (hospital variation [4.6-23.7%]). After categorizing, 1,003 patients underwent surgery in hospitals with low surgery rates (O/E ratio 1.01/corrected percentage >54%). Failure-to-cure rates were 16.8%, 12.2%, and 14.0%, respectively. This was nonsignificant in multilevel analyses (aOR: 0.63, 95% CI: 0.38-1.05; aOR: 0.76, 95% CI: 0.46-1.24). Discussion/Conclusion: Failure-to-cure rates were similar in hospitals with a high surgery rate and hospitals with a low rate. Increasing the proportion of patients undergoing a resection may offer more patients, a chance for cure

Definitive Chemoradiotherapy Versus Trimodality Therapy for Resectable Oesophageal Carcinoma: Meta-analyses and Systematic Review of Literature

Background: Standard therapy for loco-regionally advanced, resectable oesophageal carcinoma is trimodality therapy (TMT) consisting of neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy and oesophagectomy. Evidence of survival advantage of TMT over organ-preserving definitive chemoradiotherapy (dCRT) is inconclusive. The aim of this study is to compare survival between TMT and dCRT. Methods: A systematic review and meta-analyses were conducted. Randomised controlled trials and observational studies on resectable, curatively treated, oesophageal carcinoma patients above 18 years were included. Three online databases were searched for studies comparing TMT with dCRT. Primary outcomes were 1-, 2-, 3- and 5-year overall survival rates. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tools for RCTs and cohort studies. Quality of evidence was evaluated according to Grading of Recommendation Assessment, Development and Evaluation. Results: Thirty-two studies described in 35 articles were included in this systematic review, and 33 were included in the meta-analyses. Two-, three- and five-year overall survival was significantly lower in dCRT compared to TMT, with relative risks (RRs) of 0.69 (95% CI 0.57–0.83), 0.76 (95% CI 0.63–0.92) and 0.57 (95% CI 0.47–0.71), respectively. When only analysing studies with equal patient groups at baseline, no significant differences for 2-, 3- and 5-year overall survival were found with RRs of 0.83 (95% CI 0.62–1.10), 0.81 (95% CI 0.57–1.14) and 0.63 (95% CI 0.36–1.12). Conclusion: These meta-analyses do not show clear survival advantage for TMT over dCRT. Only a non-significant trend towards better survival was seen, assuming comparable patient groups at baseline. Non-operative management of oesophageal carcinoma patients might be part of a personalised and tailored treatment approach in future. However, to date hard evidence proving its non-inferiority compared to operative management is lacking

Niet-gemetastaseerde slokdarmkanker

The incidence of oesophageal cancer is on the rise, particularly due to an increase in the number of adenocarcinomas of the distal oesophagus. Adenomas and squamous cell carcinomas are the most common histological subtypes; each should be considered as a different entity. The diagnosis 'oesophageal cancer' is confirmed on the basis of histopathological investigation of biopsies, whereas tumour staging is conducted through transoesophageal endoscopic ultrasound and FDG-PET/CT diagnostics. There are various options to treat patients with oesophageal cancer, such as endoscopic resection, multimodal therapy or definitive chemoradiotherapy. Since 2012, neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy followed by surgery is the standard treatment for oesophageal cancer, except with regard to patients with a T1 or M1 tumour. In the Netherlands, most surgical procedures are now minimally invasive procedures. Despite improved treatment options, mortality rates associated with oesophageal cancer remain high