Centralization of Esophageal Cancer Surgery: Does It Improve Clinical Outcome?

Background: The volume-outcome relationship for complex surgical procedures has been extensively studied. Most studies are based on administrative data and use in-hospital mortality as the sole outcome measure. It is still unknown if concentration of these procedures leads to improvement of clinical outcome. The aim of our study was to audit the process and effect of centralizing oesophageal resections for cancer by using detailed clinical data. Methods: From January 1990 until December 2004, 555 esophagectomies for cancer were performed in 11 hospitals in the region of the Comprehensive Cancer Center West (CCCW); 342 patients were operated on before and 213 patients after the introduction of a centralization project. In this project patients were referred to the hospitals which showed superior outcomes in a regional audit. In this audit patient, tumor, and operative details as well as clinical outcome were compared between hospitals. The outcome of both cohorts, patients operated on before and after the start of the project, were evaluated. Results: Despite the more severe comorbidity of the patient group, outcome improved after centralizing esophageal resections. Along with a reduction in postoperative morbidity and length of stay, mortality fell from 12% to 4% and survival improved significantly (P = 0.001). The hospitals with the highest procedural volume showed the biggest improvement in outcome. Conclusion: Volume is an important determinant of quality of care in esophageal cancer surgery. Referral of patients with esophageal cancer to surgical units with adequate experience and superior outcomes (outcome-based referral) improves quality of care

Case-mix adjustment to compare nationwide hospital performances after resection of colorectal liver metastases

Background: Differences in patient demographics and disease burden can influence comparison of hospital performances. This study aimed to provide a case-mix model to compare short-term postoperative outcomes for patients undergoing liver resection for colorectal liver metastases (CRLM). Methods: This retrospective, population-based study included all patients who underwent liver resection for CRLM between 2014 and 2018 in the Netherlands. Variation in case-mix variables between hospitals and influence on postoperative outcomes was assessed using multivariable logistic regression. Primary outcomes were 30-day major morbidity and 30-day mortality. Validation of results was performed on the data from 2019. Results: In total, 4639 patients were included in 28 hospitals. Major morbidity was 6.2% and mortality was 1.4%. Uncorrected major morbidity ranged from 3.3% to 13.7% and mortality ranged from 0.0% to 5.0%. between hospitals. Significant differences between hospitals were observed for age higher than 80 (0.0%-17.1%, p <0.001), ASA 3 or higher (3.3%-36.3%, p <0.001), histopathological parenchymal liver disease (0.0%-47.1%, p <0.001), history of liver resection (8.1%-36.3%, p <0.001), major liver resection (6.7%-38.0%, p <0.001) and synchronous metastases (35.5%-62.1%, p <0.001). Expected 30-day major morbidity between hospitals ranged from 6.4% to 11.9% and expected 30-day mortality ranged from 0.6% to 2.9%. After case-mix correction no significant outliers concerning major morbidity and mortality remained. Validation on patients who underwent liver resection for CRLM in 2019 affirmed these outcomes. Conclusion: Case-mix adjustment is a prerequisite to allow for institutional comparison of short-term postoperative outcomes after liver resection for CRLM. (C) 2020 University Medical Center Groningen. Published by Elsevier Ltd

Hospital variation and outcomes after repeat hepatic resection for colorectal liver metastases:a nationwide cohort study

Background: Approximately 70% of patients with colorectal liver metastases (CRLM) experiences intrahepatic recurrence after initial liver resection. This study assessed outcomes and hospital variation in repeat liver resections (R-LR).Methods: This population-based study included all patients who underwent liver resection for CRLM between 2014 and 2022 in the Netherlands. Overall survival (OS) was collected for patients operated on between 2014 and 2018 by linkage to the insurance database. Results: Data of 7479 liver resections (1391 (18.6%) repeat and 6088 (81.4%) primary) were analysed. Major morbidity and mortality were not different. Factors associated with major morbidity included ASA 3+, major liver resection, extrahepatic disease, and open surgery. Five-year OS after repeat versus primary liver resection was 42.3% versus 44.8%, P = 0.37. Factors associated with worse OS included largest CRLM &gt;5 cm (aHR 1.58, 95% CI: 1.07–2.34, P = 0.023), &gt;3 CRLM (aHR 1.33, 95% CI: 1.00–1.75, P = 0.046), extrahepatic disease (aHR 1.60, 95% CI: 1.25–2.04, P = 0.001), positive tumour margins (aHR 1.42, 95% CI: 1.09–1.85, P = 0.009). Significant hospital variation in performance of R-LR was observed, median 18.9% (8.2% to 33.3%).Conclusion: Significant hospital variation was observed in performance of R-LR in the Netherlands reflecting different treatment decisions upon recurrence. On a population-based level R-LR leads to satisfactory survival.</p

Hospital variation and outcomes after repeat hepatic resection for colorectal liver metastases:a nationwide cohort study

Background: Approximately 70% of patients with colorectal liver metastases (CRLM) experiences intrahepatic recurrence after initial liver resection. This study assessed outcomes and hospital variation in repeat liver resections (R-LR).Methods: This population-based study included all patients who underwent liver resection for CRLM between 2014 and 2022 in the Netherlands. Overall survival (OS) was collected for patients operated on between 2014 and 2018 by linkage to the insurance database. Results: Data of 7479 liver resections (1391 (18.6%) repeat and 6088 (81.4%) primary) were analysed. Major morbidity and mortality were not different. Factors associated with major morbidity included ASA 3+, major liver resection, extrahepatic disease, and open surgery. Five-year OS after repeat versus primary liver resection was 42.3% versus 44.8%, P = 0.37. Factors associated with worse OS included largest CRLM &gt;5 cm (aHR 1.58, 95% CI: 1.07–2.34, P = 0.023), &gt;3 CRLM (aHR 1.33, 95% CI: 1.00–1.75, P = 0.046), extrahepatic disease (aHR 1.60, 95% CI: 1.25–2.04, P = 0.001), positive tumour margins (aHR 1.42, 95% CI: 1.09–1.85, P = 0.009). Significant hospital variation in performance of R-LR was observed, median 18.9% (8.2% to 33.3%).Conclusion: Significant hospital variation was observed in performance of R-LR in the Netherlands reflecting different treatment decisions upon recurrence. On a population-based level R-LR leads to satisfactory survival.</p

JTT-130, a microsomal triglyceride transfer protein (MTP) inhibitor lowers plasma triglycerides and LDL cholesterol concentrations without increasing hepatic triglycerides in guinea pigs

BACKGROUND: Microsomal transfer protein inhibitors (MTPi) have the potential to be used as a drug to lower plasma lipids, mainly plasma triglycerides (TG). However, studies with animal models have indicated that MTPi treatment results in the accumulation of hepatic TG. The purpose of this study was to evaluate whether JTT-130, a unique MTPi, targeted to the intestine, would effectively reduce plasma lipids without inducing a fatty liver. METHODS: Male guinea pigs (n = 10 per group) were used for this experiment. Initially all guinea pigs were fed a hypercholesterolemic diet containing 0.08 g/100 g dietary cholesterol for 3 wk. After this period, animals were randomly assigned to diets containing 0 (control), 0.0005 or 0.0015 g/100 g of MTPi for 4 wk. A diet containing 0.05 g/100 g of atorvastatin, an HMG-CoA reductase inhibitor was used as the positive control. At the end of the 7(th )week, guinea pigs were sacrificed to assess drug effects on plasma and hepatic lipids, composition of LDL and VLDL, hepatic cholesterol and lipoprotein metabolism. RESULTS: Plasma LDL cholesterol and TG were 25 and 30% lower in guinea pigs treated with MTPi compared to controls (P < 0.05). Atorvastatin had the most pronounced hypolipidemic effects with a 35% reduction in LDL cholesterol and 40% reduction in TG. JTT-130 did not induce hepatic lipid accumulation compared to controls. Cholesteryl ester transfer protein (CETP) activity was reduced in a dose dependent manner by increasing doses of MTPi and guinea pigs treated with atorvastatin had the lowest CETP activity (P < 0.01). In addition the number of molecules of cholesteryl ester in LDL and LDL diameter were lower in guinea pigs treated with atorvastatin. In contrast, hepatic enzymes involved in maintaining cholesterol homeostasis were not affected by drug treatment. CONCLUSION: These results suggest that JTT-130 could have potential clinical applications due to its plasma lipid lowering effects with no alterations in hepatic lipid concentrations

Nationwide oncological networks for resection of colorectal liver metastases in the Netherlands:Differences and postoperative outcomes

INTRODUCTION: Widespread differences in patient demographics and disease burden between hospitals for resection of colorectal liver metastases (CRLM) have been described. In the Netherlands, networks consisting of at least one tertiary referral centre and several regional hospitals have been established to optimize treatment and outcomes. The aim of this study was to assess variation in case-mix, and outcomes between these networks. METHODS: This was a population-based study including all patients who underwent CRLM resection in the Netherlands between 2014 and 2019. Variation in case-mix and outcomes between seven networks covering the whole country was evaluated. Differences in case-mix, expected 30-day major morbidity (Clavien-Dindo ≥3a) and 30-day mortality between networks were assessed. RESULTS: In total 5383 patients were included. Thirty-day major morbidity was 5.7% and 30-day mortality was 1.5%. Significant differences between networks were observed for Charlson Comorbidity Index, ASA 3+, previous liver resection, liver disease, preoperative MRI, preoperative chemotherapy, ≥3 CRLM, diameter of largest CRLM ≥55 mm, major resection, combined resection and ablation, rectal primary tumour, bilobar and extrahepatic disease. Uncorrected 30-day major morbidity ranged between 3.3% and 13.1% for hospitals, 30-day mortality ranged between 0.0% and 4.5%. Uncorrected 30-day major morbidity ranged between 4.4% and 6.0% for networks, 30-day mortality ranged between 0.0% and 2.5%. No negative outliers were observed after case-mix correction. CONCLUSION: Variation in case-mix and outcomes are considerably smaller on a network level as compared to a hospital level. Therefore, auditing is more meaningful at a network level and collaboration of hospitals within networks should be pursued

Hypercholesterolemia and Myocardial function evaluated via Tissue Doppler Imaging

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Licens

High-Volume versus Low-Volume for Esophageal Resections for Cancer: The Essential Role of Case-Mix Adjustments based on Clinical Data

Background: Most studies addressing the volume-outcome relationship in complex surgical procedures use hospital mortality as the sole outcome measure and are rarely based on detailed clinical data. The lack of reliable information about comorbidities and tumor stages makes the conclusions of these studies debatable. The purpose of this study was to compare outcomes for esophageal resections for cancer in low- versus high-volume hospitals, using an extensive set of variables concerning case-mix and outcome measures, including long-term survival. Methods: Clinical data, from 903 esophageal resections performed between January 1990 and December 1999, were retrieved from the original patients' files. Three hundred and forty-two patients were operated on in 11 low-volume hospitals (<7 resections/year) and 561 in a single high-volume center. Results: Mortality and morbidity rates were significantly lower in the high-volume center, which had an in-hospital mortality of 5 vs 13% (P < .001). On multivariate analysis, hospital volume, but also the presence of comorbidity proved to be strong prognostic factors predicting in-hospital mortality (ORs 3.05 and 2.34). For stage I and II disease, there was a significantly better 5-year survival in the high-volume center. (P = .04). Conclusions: Hospital volume and comorbidity patterns are important determinants of outcome in esophageal cancer surgery. Strong clinical endpoints such as in-hospital mortality and survival can be used as performance indicators, only if they are joined by reliable case-mix information