1
|
Lemay F, Sandhu AS, Stein BD, Goodwin R. A Canadian algorithm for upper gastrointestinal cancer management. Front Oncol 2025; 15:1548637. [PMID: 40297809 PMCID: PMC12034531 DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2025.1548637] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/19/2024] [Accepted: 03/24/2025] [Indexed: 04/30/2025] Open
Abstract
Recent advances in immunotherapy have changed the treatment landscape for cancers of the upper gastrointestinal (GI) system. Immune checkpoint inhibitors can lead to better survival and improved quality of life for affected individuals. Adopting new treatment strategies in real-world practice can be challenging, and algorithms that are easy to implement in Canadian oncology practices would benefit clinicians and patients. In this study, we present expert opinion on best practices for upper GI cancer management, including a new algorithm that integrates the latest evidence for screening, workup, diagnosis, treatment, and survivorship. The algorithm is based on a novel approach comprising a case-based, accredited educational program with asynchronous discussion among clinicians practicing across Canada, with the input of expert medical oncologists and gastroenterologists. A needs assessment was employed to determine current areas of educational need in the field of upper GI cancers, and a patient representative provided insights into patient concerns and priorities. The best practices described here include seeking patient input throughout treatment, integrating immune checkpoint inhibitors into systemic therapy for both localized and advanced disease, and providing comprehensive supportive care throughout the treatment and survivorship journey.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Frédéric Lemay
- Division of Gastroenterology, Department of Medicine, Université de Sherbrooke, Sherbrooke, QC, Canada
| | - Amindeep S. Sandhu
- Schulich School of Medicine and Dentistry, Western University, London, ON, Canada
| | | | - Rachel Goodwin
- Division of Medical Oncology, Department of Medicine, University of Ottawa, The Ottawa Hospital Regional Cancer Centre, Ottawa, ON, Canada
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Abdulrahman R, Kharytaniuk N, Birido N, Monaghan O, Sorensen J, O'Neill B, Grogan L, Walsh TN. Salvage surgery for oesophageal cancer: The need for more intensive surveillance. EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF SURGICAL ONCOLOGY 2025; 51:109548. [PMID: 39765194 DOI: 10.1016/j.ejso.2024.109548] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/11/2024] [Revised: 12/01/2024] [Accepted: 12/11/2024] [Indexed: 03/17/2025]
Abstract
BACKGROUND There is currently no consensus on the role, method or frequency of surveillance following curative treatment of oesophageal cancer; re-investigation largely relying on symptom triggers which may delay detection of recurrence and impact survival. We hypothesised that intensive surveillance with endoscopy and imaging was more likely to detect recurrent or new cancer at a curable stage and this study examined the outcomes of this surveillance policy. PATIENTS AND METHODS A prospective database of curatively treated oesophageal carcinoma patients was interrogated for patients with new or recurrent disease detected on surveillance and amenable to salvage surgery. Surveillance was by clinic visits and endoscopy/biopsy 3-monthly to 3 years, 6-montjhly to 5 years and yearly thereafter while computerised tomography (CT) was performed 6-monthly for the first 3 years, annually to 5 years, and subsequently as indicated. RESULTS Of 205 patients treated with curative intent, 24 (11.7 %) underwent salvage surgery for 27 incidences of new or recurrent cancer. The median and 5-year survival was 51.8 months and 45.8 %, which was not inferior to the entire cohort of patients treated for cure, which was 30.2 months and 32.6 % respectively (p = 0.498). CONCLUSIONS Intensive surveillance identified almost 12 % of patients with recurrent or second primary cancer amenable to salvage surgery, with a non-inferior outcome to the remaining cohort. Further studies will refine surveillance intervals, techniques and follow-up duration for oesophageal cancer as for other GI malignancies.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Rand Abdulrahman
- Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland - Medical University of Bahrain, Manama, Bahrain.
| | - Natallia Kharytaniuk
- Academic Department of Surgery, Connolly Hospital Blanchardstown, Dublin, Ireland
| | - Nuha Birido
- Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland - Medical University of Bahrain, Manama, Bahrain
| | - Orla Monaghan
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Beaumont Hospital, Dublin, Ireland
| | - Jan Sorensen
- Healthcare Outcomes Research Centre, Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland, Ireland
| | - Brian O'Neill
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Beaumont Hospital, Dublin, Ireland
| | - Liam Grogan
- Department of Medical Oncology, Beaumont Hospital, Dublin, Ireland
| | - Thomas Noel Walsh
- Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland - Medical University of Bahrain, Manama, Bahrain; Academic Department of Surgery, Connolly Hospital Blanchardstown, Dublin, Ireland; Department of Surgery, Beaumont Hospital, Dublin, Ireland
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Huizer TJ, Lagarde SM, Nuyttens JJ, Oudijk L, Spaander MC, Valkema R, Mostert B, Wijnhoven BP, SANO- study group. Active surveillance in patients with a complete clinical response after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy for esophageal- and gastroesophageal junction cancer. Innov Surg Sci 2025; 10:11-19. [PMID: 40144783 PMCID: PMC11934941 DOI: 10.1515/iss-2023-0010] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/02/2023] [Accepted: 07/30/2024] [Indexed: 03/28/2025] Open
Abstract
Neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy in patients with esophageal- and gastroesophageal junction cancer induces tumor regression. In approximately one fourth of patients, this leads to a pathological complete response in the resection specimen. Hence, active surveillance may be an alternative strategy in patients without residual disease after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy. Previous studies have shown that the combination of esophagogastroduodenoscopy with bite-on-bite biopsies, endoscopic ultrasound with fine needle aspiration of suspected lymph nodes, and a PET-CT-scan can be considered adequate for the detection of residual disease. So far, it has been unclear whether active surveillance with surgery as needed is a safe treatment option and leads to non-inferior overall survival compared to standard esophagectomy after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy. This review will discuss the current status of active surveillance for esophageal and junctional cancer.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Tamara J. Huizer
- Department of Medical Oncology, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, Erasmus University Medical Centre, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Sjoerd M. Lagarde
- Department of Surgery, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, Erasmus University Medical Centre, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Joost J.M.E. Nuyttens
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Erasmus University Medical Centre, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Lindsey Oudijk
- Department of Pathology, Erasmus University Medical Centre, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Manon C.W. Spaander
- Department of Gastroenterology, Erasmus University Medical Centre, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Roelf Valkema
- Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Erasmus University Medical Centre, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Bianca Mostert
- Department of Medical Oncology, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, Erasmus University Medical Centre, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Bas P.L. Wijnhoven
- Department of Surgery, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, Erasmus University Medical Centre, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | - SANO- study group
- Department of Medical Oncology, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, Erasmus University Medical Centre, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
- Department of Surgery, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, Erasmus University Medical Centre, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Erasmus University Medical Centre, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
- Department of Pathology, Erasmus University Medical Centre, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
- Department of Gastroenterology, Erasmus University Medical Centre, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
- Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Erasmus University Medical Centre, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Mannion L, Watson V, Mullassery V, Nair R, Charlton T, Northover M, Enting D, Van Hemelrijck M, Khan MS, Thurairaja R, Amery S, Chatterton K, Smith K, Hughes S. Treatment preferences of patients with muscle invasive bladder cancer: A discrete choice experiment. BJUI COMPASS 2024; 5:1059-1068. [PMID: 39539556 PMCID: PMC11557266 DOI: 10.1002/bco2.443] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/01/2024] [Revised: 09/12/2024] [Accepted: 09/13/2024] [Indexed: 11/16/2024] Open
Abstract
Background When faced with treatment options, patients are asked to participate in decision-making. We sought to determine which treatment aspects matter most for individuals treated for muscle invasive bladder cancer (MIBC), with an aim to improve understanding of patient preferences and what trade-offs patients are willing to accept. Our study consisted of a discrete choice experiment (DCE): a type of questionnaire used to elicit preferences in the absence of real-world choice. Methods The DCE had five attributives, each with three levels. Participants were asked to complete a questionnaire in which they were asked to choose between two hypothetical MIBC treatments. The data were analysed using a conditional logit model, and preferences for, and trade-offs between, attributes were estimated. Results We recruited patients with MIBC who had either already completed, were undergoing or had yet to commence radical treatment for MIBC (n = 60). Participants indicated a strong preference for treatments that increased their life expectancy (p = <0.001), had a lower risk of long-term complications (p = <0.001) and less changes to their body image (p = <0.001). Changes to sexual wellbeing (p = 0.09) or an increase in acute side effects (p = 0.99) did not influence preferences. Patients were willing to accept treatments with higher risk of long-term complications to improve their life expectancy or body image. Conclusion When deciding on the type of treatment, increased life expectancy is the most important consideration for people with MIBC. The risk of long-term complications and changes to overall body image as a result of treatment are also important. Our study also highlighted that patients are willing to accept a higher risk of long-term complications to improve other treatment outcomes. Understanding patient preferences is important for shared decision-making, which has an impact on quality of care for people living with MIBC.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Liam Mannion
- City University of LondonLondonUK
- King's College LondonLondonUK
- Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation TrustLondonUK
| | | | - Vinod Mullassery
- King's College LondonLondonUK
- Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation TrustLondonUK
| | - Rajesh Nair
- Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation TrustLondonUK
| | | | | | - Deborah Enting
- King's College LondonLondonUK
- Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation TrustLondonUK
| | | | | | | | | | | | - Kate Smith
- Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation TrustLondonUK
| | - Simon Hughes
- King's College LondonLondonUK
- Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation TrustLondonUK
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Walsh TN, Kharytaniuk N, Furlong H, Sorensen J, O'Neill BDP, Breathnach OS, Grogan L. Patient choice of surgery or surveillance following a clinical complete response to neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy for oesophageal carcinoma. Br J Surg 2024; 111:znad352. [PMID: 37933675 DOI: 10.1093/bjs/znad352] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/25/2023] [Revised: 06/21/2023] [Accepted: 08/26/2023] [Indexed: 11/08/2023]
Affiliation(s)
- Thomas N Walsh
- Department of Surgery, Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland, Connolly Hospital, Dublin, Ireland
- Department of Surgery, Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland, Beaumont Hospital, Dublin, Ireland
| | - Natallia Kharytaniuk
- Department of Surgery, Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland, Connolly Hospital, Dublin, Ireland
- Ear Institute, University College London, London, UK
| | - Heidi Furlong
- Department of Surgery, Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland, Connolly Hospital, Dublin, Ireland
| | - Jan Sorensen
- Healthcare Outcomes Research Centre, Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland, Dublin, Ireland
| | - Brian D P O'Neill
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Beaumont Hospital, Dublin, Ireland
| | | | - Liam Grogan
- Department of Medical Oncology, Beaumont Hospital, Dublin, Ireland
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
Oesophago-Gastric Anastomotic Audit (OGAA) Collaborative. Postoperative and Pathological Outcomes of CROSS and FLOT as Neoadjuvant Therapy for Esophageal and Junctional Adenocarcinoma: An International Cohort Study From the Oesophagogastric Anastomosis Audit (OGAA). Ann Surg 2023; 277:e1026-e1034. [PMID: 35099168 DOI: 10.1097/sla.0000000000005394] [Citation(s) in RCA: 14] [Impact Index Per Article: 7.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/26/2022]
Abstract
OBJECTIVE This study aimed to compare the postoperative and pathological outcomes between carboplatin, paclitaxel, radiotherapy (CROSS) and 5-FU, leucovorine, oxaliplatin and docetaxel (FLOT) in esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC) patients from an international, multicenter cohort. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA Ongoing debate exists around optimum approach to locally advanced EAC, with proponents for perioperative chemotherapy, such as FLOT, or multimodal therapy, in particular the CROSS regimen. METHODS Patients undergoing CROSS (n = 350) and FLOT (n = 368), followed by curative esophagectomy for EAC were identified from the Oesophagogastric Anastomosis Audit. RESULTS The 90-day mortality was higher after CROSS than FLOT (5% vs 1%, P = 0.005), even on adjusted analyses [odds ratio (OR): 3.97, confidence interval (CI) 95% : 1.34-13.67]. Postoperative mortality in CROSS were related to higher pulmonary (74% vs 60%) and cardiac complications (42% vs 20%) compared to FLOT. CROSS was associated with higher pathologic complete response (pCR) rates (18% vs 10%, P = 0.004) and margin-negative resections (93% vs 76%, P < 0.001) compared with FLOT. On adjusted analyses, CROSS was associated with higher pCR rates (OR: 2.05, CI 95% : 1.26-3.34) and margin-negative resections (OR: 4.55, CI 95% : 2.70-7.69) compared to FLOT. CONCLUSIONS This study provides real-world data CROSS was associated with higher 90-day mortality than FLOT, related to cardio-pulmonary complications with CROSS. These warrant a further review into causes and mechanisms in selected patients, and at minimum suggest the need for strict radiation therapy quality assurance. Research into impact of higher pCR rates and R0 resections with CROSS compared to FLOT on long-term survival is needed.
Collapse
|
7
|
Salimy MS, Humphrey TJ, Katakam A, Melnic CM, Heng M, Bedair HS. Which Factors Are Considered by Patients When Considering Total Joint Arthroplasty? A Discrete-choice Experiment. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2023; 481:427-437. [PMID: 36111881 PMCID: PMC9928758 DOI: 10.1097/corr.0000000000002358] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/18/2022] [Accepted: 07/19/2022] [Indexed: 01/31/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND TKA and THA are major surgical procedures, and they are associated with the potential for serious, even life-threatening complications. Patients must weigh the risks of these complications against the benefits of surgery. However, little is known about the relative importance patients place on the potential complications of surgery compared with any potential benefit the procedures may achieve. Furthermore, patient preferences may often be discordant with surgeon preferences regarding the treatment decision-making process. A discrete-choice experiment (DCE) is a quantitative survey technique designed to elicit patient preferences by presenting patients with two or more hypothetical scenarios. Each scenario is composed of several attributes or factors, and the relative extent to which respondents prioritize these attributes can be quantified to assess preferences when making a decision, such as whether to pursue lower extremity arthroplasty. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES In this DCE, we asked: (1) Which patient-related factors (such as pain and functional level) and surgery-related factors (such as the risk of infection, revision, or death) are influential in patients' decisions about whether to undergo lower extremity arthroplasty? (2) Which of these factors do patients emphasize the most when making this decision? METHODS A DCE was designed with the following attributes: pain; physical function; return to work; and infection risks, reoperation, implant failure leading to premature revision, deep vein thrombosis, and mortality. From October 2021 to March 2022, we recruited all new patients to two arthroplasty surgeons' clinics who were older than 18 years and scheduled for a consultation for knee- or hip-related complaints who had no previous history of a primary TKA or THA. A total of 56% (292 of 517) of new patients met the inclusion criteria and were approached with the opportunity to complete the DCE. Among the cohort, 51% (150 of 292) of patients completed the DCE. Patients were administered the DCE, which consisted of 10 hypothetical scenarios that had the patient decide between a surgical and nonsurgical outcome, each consisting of varying levels of eight attributes (such as infection, reoperation, and ability to return to work). A subsequent demographic questionnaire followed this assessment. To answer our first research question about the patient-related and surgery-related factors that most influence patients' decisions to undergo lower extremity arthroplasty, we used a conditional logit regression to control for potentially confounding attributes from within the DCE and determine which variables shifted a patient's determination to pursue surgery. To answer our second question, about which of these factors received the greatest priority by patients, we compared the relevant importance of each factor, as determined by each factor's beta coefficient, against each other influential factor. A larger absolute value of beta coefficient reflects a relatively higher degree of importance placed on a variable compared with other variables within our study. Of the respondents, 57% (85 of 150) were women, and the mean age at the time of participation was 64 ± 10 years. Most respondents (95% [143 of 150]) were White. Regarding surgery, 38% (57 of 150) were considering THA, 59% (88 of 150) were considering TKA, and 3% (5 of 150) were considering both. Among the cohort, 49% (74 of 150) of patients reported their average pain level as severe, or 7 to 10 on a scale from 0 to 10, and 47% (71 of 150) reported having 50% of full physical function. RESULTS Variables that were influential to respondents when deciding on lower extremity total joint arthroplasty were improvement from severe pain to minimal pain (β coefficient: -0.59 [95% CI -0.72 to -0.46]; p < 0.01), improvement in physical function level from 50% to 100% (β: -0.80 [95% CI -0.9 to -0.7]; p < 0.01), ability to return to work versus inability to return (β: -0.38 [95% CI -0.48 to -0.28]; p < 0.01), and the surgery-related factor of risk of infection (β: -0.22 [95% CI -0.30 to -0.14]; p < 0.01). Improvement in physical function from 50% to 100% was the most important for patients making this decision because it had the largest absolute coefficient value of -0.80. To improve physical function from 50% to 100% and reduce pain from severe to minimal because of total joint arthroplasty, patients were willing to accept a hypothetical absolute (and not merely an incrementally increased) 37% and 27% risk of infection, respectively. When we stratified our analysis by respondents' preoperative pain levels, we identified that only patients with severe pain at the time of their appointment found the risk of infection influential in their decision-making process (β: -0.27 [95% CI -0.37 to -0.17]; p = 0.01) and were willing to accept a 24% risk of infection to improve their physical functioning from 50% to 100%. CONCLUSION Our study revealed that patients consider pain alleviation, physical function improvement, and infection risk to be the most important attributes when considering total joint arthroplasty. Patients with severe baseline pain demonstrated a willingness to take on a hypothetically high infection risk as a tradeoff for improved physical function or pain relief. Because patients seemed to prioritize postoperative physical function so highly in our study, it is especially important that surgeons customize their presentations about the likelihood an individual patient will achieve a substantial functional improvement as part of any office visit where arthroplasty is discussed. Future studies should focus on quantitatively assessing patients' understanding of surgical risks after a surgical consultation, especially in patients who may be the most risk tolerant. CLINICAL RELEVANCE Surgeons should be aware that patients with the most limited physical function and the highest baseline pain levels are more willing to accept the more potentially life-threatening and devastating risks that accompany total joint arthroplasty, specifically infection. The degree to which patients seemed to undervalue the harms of infection (based on our knowledge and perception of those harms) suggests that surgeons need to take particular care in explaining the degree to which a prosthetic joint infection can harm or kill patients who develop one.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Mehdi Sina Salimy
The first three authors contributed equally to this manuscript. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA
| | - Tyler James Humphrey
The first three authors contributed equally to this manuscript. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA- Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Newton-Wellesley Hospital, Newton, MA, USA
| | - Akhil Katakam
The first three authors contributed equally to this manuscript. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA- Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Newton-Wellesley Hospital, Newton, MA, USA
| | - Christopher M. Melnic
The first three authors contributed equally to this manuscript. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA- Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Newton-Wellesley Hospital, Newton, MA, USA
| | - Marilyn Heng
The first three authors contributed equally to this manuscript. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA
| | - Hany S. Bedair
The first three authors contributed equally to this manuscript. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA- Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Newton-Wellesley Hospital, Newton, MA, USA
| |
Collapse
|
8
|
Hamamoto Y, Murakami K, Kato K, Kitagawa Y. Management of elderly patients with esophageal squamous cell cancer. Jpn J Clin Oncol 2022; 52:816-824. [PMID: 35511482 PMCID: PMC9354502 DOI: 10.1093/jjco/hyac067] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/11/2021] [Accepted: 04/07/2022] [Indexed: 12/02/2022] Open
Abstract
This review focuses on the treatment about elderly esophageal cancer to clarify the current situation regarding our clinical question. Although there are several reviews about elderly esophageal cancer treatment, there are fundamental differences between Japan and the rest of the world. Two main differences are raised: histological differences and treatment strategies for resectable patients. We overview each status according to following clinical questions. First, there are no established evaluation criteria for frail. Second, selection criteria for surgery or non-surgery are not established. Third, few specific treatments for elderly patients (EPs) are investigated. In conclusion, there are many reports about treatment of esophageal squamous cell carcinoma for EPs, although treatment strategy is still controversial. We have to consider well-designed prospective trial to confirm specific treatment strategy according to each stage.
Collapse
Grants
- Chugai Pharmaceutical Company, Ltd
- Taiho Pharmaceutical Company, Ltd
- Fujifilm, Toyama Chemical Company, Ltd
- Abbott Japan Company, Ltd
- KCI Licensing, Inc
- Tsumura & Company, Ltd
- Sanofi K.K., Eisai Company, Ltd
- Japan Blood Products Organization Medtronic Japan Company, Ltd
- Nihon Pharmaceutical Company, Ltd
- Ono Pharmaceutical Company, Ltd
- Pfizer Japan, Inc
- Kyouwa Hakkou Kirin Company, Ltd
- Taisho Toyama Pharmaceutical Company, Ltd
- Dainippon Sumitomo Pharma Company, Ltd
- Medicon, Inc
- Astellas Pharma, Inc
- Kowa Pharmaceutical Company, Ltd
- Kaken Pharmaceutical Company, Ltd
- Shionogi Company, Ltd
- Otsuka Pharmaceutical Factory, Inc
- Takeda Pharmaceutical Company, Ltd
- Otsuka Pharmaceutical Company, Ltd
- EA Pharma Company, Ltd
- Asahi Kasei Company, Ltd
- Merck Serono Company, Ltd
- Daiichi Sankyo Company, Ltd
- Yakult Honsha Company, Ltd
- Nihon Pharmaceutical Co, Ltd
- Ono Pharmaceutical Company
- Taisho Toyama Pharmaceutical Company
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Yasuo Hamamoto
- Keio Cancer Center, Keio University Hospital, School of Medicine, Tokyo, Japan
| | - Kentaro Murakami
- Department of Frontier Surgery, Graduate School of Medicine, Chiba University, Chiba, Japan
| | - Ken Kato
- Department of Head and Neck, Esophageal Medical Oncology, National Cancer Center Hospital, Tokyo, Japan
| | - Yuko Kitagawa
- Department of Surgery, Keio University School of Medicine, Tokyo, Japan
| |
Collapse
|
9
|
Kamarajah SK, Evans RPT, Nepogodiev D, Hodson J, Bundred JR, Gockel I, Gossage JA, Isik A, Kidane B, Mahendran HA, Negoi I, Okonta KE, Sayyed R, van Hillegersberg R, Vohra RS, Wijnhoven BPL, Singh P, Griffiths EA, Kamarajah SK, Hodson J, Griffiths EA, Alderson D, Bundred J, Evans RPT, Gossage J, Griffiths EA, Jefferies B, Kamarajah SK, McKay S, Mohamed I, Nepogodiev D, Siaw-Acheampong K, Singh P, van Hillegersberg R, Vohra R, Wanigasooriya K, Whitehouse T, Gjata A, Moreno JI, Takeda FR, Kidane B, Guevara Castro R, Harustiak T, Bekele A, Kechagias A, Gockel I, Kennedy A, Da Roit A, Bagajevas A, Azagra JS, Mahendran HA, Mejía-Fernández L, Wijnhoven BPL, El Kafsi J, Sayyed RH, Sousa M M, Sampaio AS, Negoi I, Blanco R, Wallner B, Schneider PM, Hsu PK, Isik A, Gananadha S, Wills V, Devadas M, Duong C, Talbot M, Hii MW, Jacobs R, Andreollo NA, Johnston B, Darling G, Isaza-Restrepo A, Rosero G, Arias-Amézquita F, Raptis D, Gaedcke J, Reim D, Izbicki J, Egberts JH, Dikinis S, Kjaer DW, Larsen MH, Achiam MP, Saarnio J, Theodorou D, Liakakos T, Korkolis DP, Robb WB, Collins C, Murphy T, Reynolds J, Tonini V, Migliore M, Bonavina L, Valmasoni M, Bardini R, Weindelmayer J, et alKamarajah SK, Evans RPT, Nepogodiev D, Hodson J, Bundred JR, Gockel I, Gossage JA, Isik A, Kidane B, Mahendran HA, Negoi I, Okonta KE, Sayyed R, van Hillegersberg R, Vohra RS, Wijnhoven BPL, Singh P, Griffiths EA, Kamarajah SK, Hodson J, Griffiths EA, Alderson D, Bundred J, Evans RPT, Gossage J, Griffiths EA, Jefferies B, Kamarajah SK, McKay S, Mohamed I, Nepogodiev D, Siaw-Acheampong K, Singh P, van Hillegersberg R, Vohra R, Wanigasooriya K, Whitehouse T, Gjata A, Moreno JI, Takeda FR, Kidane B, Guevara Castro R, Harustiak T, Bekele A, Kechagias A, Gockel I, Kennedy A, Da Roit A, Bagajevas A, Azagra JS, Mahendran HA, Mejía-Fernández L, Wijnhoven BPL, El Kafsi J, Sayyed RH, Sousa M M, Sampaio AS, Negoi I, Blanco R, Wallner B, Schneider PM, Hsu PK, Isik A, Gananadha S, Wills V, Devadas M, Duong C, Talbot M, Hii MW, Jacobs R, Andreollo NA, Johnston B, Darling G, Isaza-Restrepo A, Rosero G, Arias-Amézquita F, Raptis D, Gaedcke J, Reim D, Izbicki J, Egberts JH, Dikinis S, Kjaer DW, Larsen MH, Achiam MP, Saarnio J, Theodorou D, Liakakos T, Korkolis DP, Robb WB, Collins C, Murphy T, Reynolds J, Tonini V, Migliore M, Bonavina L, Valmasoni M, Bardini R, Weindelmayer J, Terashima M, White RE, Alghunaim E, Elhadi M, Leon-Takahashi AM, Medina-Franco H, Lau PC, Okonta KE, Heisterkamp J, Rosman C, van Hillegersberg R, Beban G, Babor R, Gordon A, Rossaak JI, Pal KMI, Qureshi AU, Naqi SA, Syed AA, Barbosa J, Vicente CS, Leite J, Freire J, Casaca R, Costa RCT, Scurtu RR, Mogoanta SS, Bolca C, Constantinoiu S, Sekhniaidze D, Bjelović M, So JBY, Gačevski G, Loureiro C, Pera M, Bianchi A, Moreno Gijón M, Martín Fernández J, Trugeda Carrera MS, Vallve-Bernal M, Cítores Pascual MA, Elmahi S, Halldestam I, Hedberg J, Mönig S, Gutknecht S, Tez M, Guner A, Tirnaksiz MB, Colak E, Sevinç B, Hindmarsh A, Khan I, Khoo D, Byrom R, Gokhale J, Wilkerson P, Jain P, Chan D, Robertson K, Iftikhar S, Skipworth R, Forshaw M, Higgs S, Gossage J, Nijjar R, Viswanath YKS, Turner P, Dexter S, Boddy A, Allum WH, Oglesby S, Cheong E, Beardsmore D, Vohra R, Maynard N, Berrisford R, Mercer S, Puig S, Melhado R, Kelty C, Underwood T, Dawas K, Lewis W, Bryce G, Thomas M, Arndt AT, Palazzo F, Meguid RA, Fergusson J, Beenen E, Mosse C, Salim J, Cheah S, Wright T, Cerdeira MP, McQuillan P, Richardson M, Liem H, Spillane J, Yacob M, Albadawi F, Thorpe T, Dingle A, Cabalag C, Loi K, Fisher OM, Ward S, Read M, Johnson M, Bassari R, Bui H, Cecconello I, Sallum RAA, da Rocha JRM, Lopes LR, Tercioti Jr V, Coelho JDS, Ferrer JAP, Buduhan G, Tan L, Srinathan S, Shea P, Yeung J, Allison F, Carroll P, Vargas-Barato F, Gonzalez F, Ortega J, Nino-Torres L, Beltrán-García TC, Castilla L, Pineda M, Bastidas A, Gómez-Mayorga J, Cortés N, Cetares C, Caceres S, Duarte S, Pazdro A, Snajdauf M, Faltova H, Sevcikova M, Mortensen PB, Katballe N, Ingemann T, Morten B, Kruhlikava I, Ainswort AP, Stilling NM, Eckardt J, Holm J, Thorsteinsson M, Siemsen M, Brandt B, Nega B, Teferra E, Tizazu A, Kauppila JH, Koivukangas V, Meriläinen S, Gruetzmann R, Krautz C, Weber G, Golcher H, Emons G, Azizian A, Ebeling M, Niebisch S, Kreuser N, Albanese G, Hesse J, Volovnik L, Boecher U, Reeh M, Triantafyllou S, Schizas D, Michalinos A, Balli E, Mpoura M, Charalabopoulos A, Manatakis DK, Balalis D, Bolger J, Baban C, Mastrosimone A, McAnena O, Quinn A, Ó Súilleabháin CB, Hennessy MM, Ivanovski I, Khizer H, Ravi N, Donlon N, Cervellera M, Vaccari S, Bianchini S, Asti E, Bernardi D, Merigliano S, Provenzano L, Scarpa M, Saadeh L, Salmaso B, De Manzoni G, Giacopuzzi S, La Mendola R, De Pasqual CA, Tsubosa Y, Niihara M, Irino T, Makuuchi R, Ishii K K, Mwachiro M, Fekadu A, Odera A, Mwachiro E, AlShehab D, Ahmed HA, Shebani AO, Elhadi A, Elnagar FA, Elnagar HF, Makkai-Popa ST, Wong LF, Tan YR, Thannimalai S, Ho CA, Pang WS, Tan JH, Basave HNL, Cortés-González R, Lagarde SM, van Lanschot JJB, Cords C, Jansen WA, Martijnse I, Matthijsen R, Bouwense S, Klarenbeek B, Verstegen M, van Workum F, Ruurda JP, van der Sluis PC, de Maat M, Evenett N, Johnston P, Patel R, MacCormick A, Smith B, Ekwunife C, Memon AH, Shaikh K, Wajid A, Khalil N, Haris M, Mirza ZU, Qudus SBA, Sarwar MZ, Shehzadi A, Raza A, Jhanzaib MH, Farmanali J, Zakir Z, Shakeel O, Nasir I, Khattak S, Baig M, Noor MA, Ahmed HH, Naeem A, Pinho AC, da Silva R, Bernardes A, Campos JC, Matos H, Braga T, Monteiro C, Ramos P, Cabral F, Gomes MP, Martins PC, Correia AM, Videira JF, Ciuce C, Drasovean R, Apostu R, Ciuce C, Paitici S, Racu AE, Obleaga CV, Beuran M, Stoica B, Ciubotaru C, Negoita V, Cordos I, Birla RD, Predescu D, Hoara PA, Tomsa R, Shneider V, Agasiev M, Ganjara I, Gunjić D, Veselinović M, Babič T, Chin TS, Shabbir A, Kim G, Crnjac A, Samo H, Díez del Val I, Leturio S, Ramón JM, Dal Cero M, Rifá S, Rico M, Pagan Pomar A, Martinez Corcoles JA, Rodicio Miravalles JL, Pais SA, Turienzo SA, Alvarez LS, Campos PV, Rendo AG, García SS, Santos EPG, Martínez ET, Fernández Díaz MJ, Magadán Álvarez C, Concepción Martín V, Díaz López C, Rosat Rodrigo A, Pérez Sánchez LE, Bailón Cuadrado M, Tinoco Carrasco C, Choolani Bhojwani E, Sánchez DP, Ahmed ME, Dzhendov T, Lindberg F, Rutegård M, Sundbom M, Mickael C, Colucci N, Schnider A, Er S, Kurnaz E, Turkyilmaz S, Turkyilmaz A, Yildirim R, Baki BE, Akkapulu N, Karahan O, Damburaci N, Hardwick R, Safranek P, Sujendran V, Bennett J, Afzal Z, Shrotri M, Chan B, Exarchou K, Gilbert T, Amalesh T, Mukherjee D, Mukherjee S, Wiggins TH, Kennedy R, McCain S, Harris A, Dobson G, Davies N, Wilson I, Mayo D, Bennett D, Young R, Manby P, Blencowe N, Schiller M, Byrne B, Mitton D, Wong V, Elshaer A, Cowen M, Menon V, Tan LC, McLaughlin E, Koshy R, Sharp C, Brewer H, Das N, Cox M, Al Khyatt W, Worku D, Iqbal R, Walls L, McGregor R, Fullarton G, Macdonald A, MacKay C, Craig C, Dwerryhouse S, Hornby S, Jaunoo S, Wadley M, Baker C, Saad M, Kelly M, Davies A, Di Maggio F, McKay S, Mistry P, Singhal R, Tucker O, Kapoulas S, Powell-Brett S, Davis P, Bromley G, Watson L, Verma R, Ward J, Shetty V, Ball C, Pursnani K, Sarela A, Sue Ling H, Mehta S, Hayden J, To N, Palser T, Hunter D, Supramaniam K, Butt Z, Ahmed A, Kumar S, Chaudry A, Moussa O, Kordzadeh A, Lorenzi B, Wilson M, Patil P, Noaman I, Bouras G, Evans R, Singh M, Warrilow H, Ahmad A, Tewari N, Yanni F, Couch J, Theophilidou E, Reilly JJ, Singh P, van Boxel G, Akbari K, Zanotti D, Sanders G, Wheatley T, Ariyarathenam A, Reece-Smith A, Humphreys L, Choh C, Carter N, Knight B, Pucher P, Athanasiou A, Mohamed I, Tan B, Abdulrahman M, Vickers J, Akhtar K, Chaparala R, Brown R, Alasmar MMA, Ackroyd R, Patel K, Tamhankar A, Wyman A, Walker R, Grace B, Abbassi N, Slim N, Ioannidi L, Blackshaw G, Havard T, Escofet X, Powell A, Owera A, Rashid F, Jambulingam P, Padickakudi J, Ben-Younes H, Mccormack K, Makey IA, Karush MK, Seder CW, Liptay MJ, Chmielewski G, Rosato EL, Berger AC, Zheng R, Okolo E, Singh A, Scott CD, Weyant MJ, Mitchell JD. Textbook outcome following oesophagectomy for cancer: international cohort study. Br J Surg 2022. [DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/bjs/znac016] [Show More Authors] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/06/2022]
Abstract
Abstract
Background
Textbook outcome has been proposed as a tool for the assessment of oncological surgical care. However, an international assessment in patients undergoing oesophagectomy for oesophageal cancer has not been reported. This study aimed to assess textbook outcome in an international setting.
Methods
Patients undergoing curative resection for oesophageal cancer were identified from the international Oesophagogastric Anastomosis Audit (OGAA) from April 2018 to December 2018. Textbook outcome was defined as the percentage of patients who underwent a complete tumour resection with at least 15 lymph nodes in the resected specimen and an uneventful postoperative course, without hospital readmission. A multivariable binary logistic regression model was used to identify factors independently associated with textbook outcome, and results are presented as odds ratio (OR) and 95 per cent confidence intervals (95 per cent c.i.).
Results
Of 2159 patients with oesophageal cancer, 39.7 per cent achieved a textbook outcome. The outcome parameter ‘no major postoperative complication’ had the greatest negative impact on a textbook outcome for patients with oesophageal cancer, compared to other textbook outcome parameters. Multivariable analysis identified male gender and increasing Charlson comorbidity index with a significantly lower likelihood of textbook outcome. Presence of 24-hour on-call rota for oesophageal surgeons (OR 2.05, 95 per cent c.i. 1.30 to 3.22; P = 0.002) and radiology (OR 1.54, 95 per cent c.i. 1.05 to 2.24; P = 0.027), total minimally invasive oesophagectomies (OR 1.63, 95 per cent c.i. 1.27 to 2.08; P < 0.001), and chest anastomosis above azygous (OR 2.17, 95 per cent c.i. 1.58 to 2.98; P < 0.001) were independently associated with a significantly increased likelihood of textbook outcome.
Conclusion
Textbook outcome is achieved in less than 40 per cent of patients having oesophagectomy for cancer. Improvements in centralization, hospital resources, access to minimal access surgery, and adoption of newer techniques for improving lymph node yield could improve textbook outcome.
Collapse
|
10
|
Oesophago-Gastric Anastomotic Audit (OGAA) Collaborative, Kamarajah SK, Evans RPT, Nepogodiev D, Hodson J, Bundred JR, Gockel I, Gossage JA, Isik A, Kidane B, Mahendran HA, Negoi I, Okonta KE, Sayyed R, van Hillegersberg R, Vohra RS, Wijnhoven BPL, Singh P, Griffiths EA, Kamarajah SK, Hodson J, Griffiths EA, Alderson D, Bundred J, Evans RPT, Gossage J, Griffiths EA, Jefferies B, Kamarajah SK, McKay S, Mohamed I, Nepogodiev D, Siaw-Acheampong K, Singh P, van Hillegersberg R, Vohra R, Wanigasooriya K, Whitehouse T, Gjata A, Moreno JI, Takeda FR, Kidane B, Guevara Castro R, Harustiak T, Bekele A, Kechagias A, Gockel I, Kennedy A, Da Roit A, Bagajevas A, Azagra JS, Mahendran HA, Mejía-Fernández L, Wijnhoven BPL, El Kafsi J, Sayyed RH, Sousa M M, Sampaio AS, Negoi I, Blanco R, Wallner B, Schneider PM, Hsu PK, Isik A, Gananadha S, Wills V, Devadas M, Duong C, Talbot M, Hii MW, Jacobs R, Andreollo NA, Johnston B, Darling G, Isaza-Restrepo A, Rosero G, Arias-Amézquita F, Raptis D, Gaedcke J, Reim D, Izbicki J, Egberts JH, Dikinis S, Kjaer DW, Larsen MH, Achiam MP, Saarnio J, Theodorou D, Liakakos T, Korkolis DP, Robb WB, Collins C, Murphy T, Reynolds J, Tonini V, Migliore M, Bonavina L, Valmasoni M, Bardini R, Weindelmayer J, et alOesophago-Gastric Anastomotic Audit (OGAA) Collaborative, Kamarajah SK, Evans RPT, Nepogodiev D, Hodson J, Bundred JR, Gockel I, Gossage JA, Isik A, Kidane B, Mahendran HA, Negoi I, Okonta KE, Sayyed R, van Hillegersberg R, Vohra RS, Wijnhoven BPL, Singh P, Griffiths EA, Kamarajah SK, Hodson J, Griffiths EA, Alderson D, Bundred J, Evans RPT, Gossage J, Griffiths EA, Jefferies B, Kamarajah SK, McKay S, Mohamed I, Nepogodiev D, Siaw-Acheampong K, Singh P, van Hillegersberg R, Vohra R, Wanigasooriya K, Whitehouse T, Gjata A, Moreno JI, Takeda FR, Kidane B, Guevara Castro R, Harustiak T, Bekele A, Kechagias A, Gockel I, Kennedy A, Da Roit A, Bagajevas A, Azagra JS, Mahendran HA, Mejía-Fernández L, Wijnhoven BPL, El Kafsi J, Sayyed RH, Sousa M M, Sampaio AS, Negoi I, Blanco R, Wallner B, Schneider PM, Hsu PK, Isik A, Gananadha S, Wills V, Devadas M, Duong C, Talbot M, Hii MW, Jacobs R, Andreollo NA, Johnston B, Darling G, Isaza-Restrepo A, Rosero G, Arias-Amézquita F, Raptis D, Gaedcke J, Reim D, Izbicki J, Egberts JH, Dikinis S, Kjaer DW, Larsen MH, Achiam MP, Saarnio J, Theodorou D, Liakakos T, Korkolis DP, Robb WB, Collins C, Murphy T, Reynolds J, Tonini V, Migliore M, Bonavina L, Valmasoni M, Bardini R, Weindelmayer J, Terashima M, White RE, Alghunaim E, Elhadi M, Leon-Takahashi AM, Medina-Franco H, Lau PC, Okonta KE, Heisterkamp J, Rosman C, van Hillegersberg R, Beban G, Babor R, Gordon A, Rossaak JI, Pal KMI, Qureshi AU, Naqi SA, Syed AA, Barbosa J, Vicente CS, Leite J, Freire J, Casaca R, Costa RCT, Scurtu RR, Mogoanta SS, Bolca C, Constantinoiu S, Sekhniaidze D, Bjelović M, So JBY, Gačevski G, Loureiro C, Pera M, Bianchi A, Moreno Gijón M, Martín Fernández J, Trugeda Carrera MS, Vallve-Bernal M, Cítores Pascual MA, Elmahi S, Halldestam I, Hedberg J, Mönig S, Gutknecht S, Tez M, Guner A, Tirnaksiz MB, Colak E, Sevinç B, Hindmarsh A, Khan I, Khoo D, Byrom R, Gokhale J, Wilkerson P, Jain P, Chan D, Robertson K, Iftikhar S, Skipworth R, Forshaw M, Higgs S, Gossage J, Nijjar R, Viswanath YKS, Turner P, Dexter S, Boddy A, Allum WH, Oglesby S, Cheong E, Beardsmore D, Vohra R, Maynard N, Berrisford R, Mercer S, Puig S, Melhado R, Kelty C, Underwood T, Dawas K, Lewis W, Bryce G, Thomas M, Arndt AT, Palazzo F, Meguid RA, Fergusson J, Beenen E, Mosse C, Salim J, Cheah S, Wright T, Cerdeira MP, McQuillan P, Richardson M, Liem H, Spillane J, Yacob M, Albadawi F, Thorpe T, Dingle A, Cabalag C, Loi K, Fisher OM, Ward S, Read M, Johnson M, Bassari R, Bui H, Cecconello I, Sallum RAA, da Rocha JRM, Lopes LR, Tercioti Jr V, Coelho JDS, Ferrer JAP, Buduhan G, Tan L, Srinathan S, Shea P, Yeung J, Allison F, Carroll P, Vargas-Barato F, Gonzalez F, Ortega J, Nino-Torres L, Beltrán-García TC, Castilla L, Pineda M, Bastidas A, Gómez-Mayorga J, Cortés N, Cetares C, Caceres S, Duarte S, Pazdro A, Snajdauf M, Faltova H, Sevcikova M, Mortensen PB, Katballe N, Ingemann T, Morten B, Kruhlikava I, Ainswort AP, Stilling NM, Eckardt J, Holm J, Thorsteinsson M, Siemsen M, Brandt B, Nega B, Teferra E, Tizazu A, Kauppila JH, Koivukangas V, Meriläinen S, Gruetzmann R, Krautz C, Weber G, Golcher H, Emons G, Azizian A, Ebeling M, Niebisch S, Kreuser N, Albanese G, Hesse J, Volovnik L, Boecher U, Reeh M, Triantafyllou S, Schizas D, Michalinos A, Balli E, Mpoura M, Charalabopoulos A, Manatakis DK, Balalis D, Bolger J, Baban C, Mastrosimone A, McAnena O, Quinn A, Ó Súilleabháin CB, Hennessy MM, Ivanovski I, Khizer H, Ravi N, Donlon N, Cervellera M, Vaccari S, Bianchini S, Asti E, Bernardi D, Merigliano S, Provenzano L, Scarpa M, Saadeh L, Salmaso B, De Manzoni G, Giacopuzzi S, La Mendola R, De Pasqual CA, Tsubosa Y, Niihara M, Irino T, Makuuchi R, Ishii K K, Mwachiro M, Fekadu A, Odera A, Mwachiro E, AlShehab D, Ahmed HA, Shebani AO, Elhadi A, Elnagar FA, Elnagar HF, Makkai-Popa ST, Wong LF, Tan YR, Thannimalai S, Ho CA, Pang WS, Tan JH, Basave HNL, Cortés-González R, Lagarde SM, van Lanschot JJB, Cords C, Jansen WA, Martijnse I, Matthijsen R, Bouwense S, Klarenbeek B, Verstegen M, van Workum F, Ruurda JP, van der Sluis PC, de Maat M, Evenett N, Johnston P, Patel R, MacCormick A, Smith B, Ekwunife C, Memon AH, Shaikh K, Wajid A, Khalil N, Haris M, Mirza ZU, Qudus SBA, Sarwar MZ, Shehzadi A, Raza A, Jhanzaib MH, Farmanali J, Zakir Z, Shakeel O, Nasir I, Khattak S, Baig M, Noor MA, Ahmed HH, Naeem A, Pinho AC, da Silva R, Bernardes A, Campos JC, Matos H, Braga T, Monteiro C, Ramos P, Cabral F, Gomes MP, Martins PC, Correia AM, Videira JF, Ciuce C, Drasovean R, Apostu R, Ciuce C, Paitici S, Racu AE, Obleaga CV, Beuran M, Stoica B, Ciubotaru C, Negoita V, Cordos I, Birla RD, Predescu D, Hoara PA, Tomsa R, Shneider V, Agasiev M, Ganjara I, Gunjić D, Veselinović M, Babič T, Chin TS, Shabbir A, Kim G, Crnjac A, Samo H, Díez del Val I, Leturio S, Ramón JM, Dal Cero M, Rifá S, Rico M, Pagan Pomar A, Martinez Corcoles JA, Rodicio Miravalles JL, Pais SA, Turienzo SA, Alvarez LS, Campos PV, Rendo AG, García SS, Santos EPG, Martínez ET, Fernández Díaz MJ, Magadán Álvarez C, Concepción Martín V, Díaz López C, Rosat Rodrigo A, Pérez Sánchez LE, Bailón Cuadrado M, Tinoco Carrasco C, Choolani Bhojwani E, Sánchez DP, Ahmed ME, Dzhendov T, Lindberg F, Rutegård M, Sundbom M, Mickael C, Colucci N, Schnider A, Er S, Kurnaz E, Turkyilmaz S, Turkyilmaz A, Yildirim R, Baki BE, Akkapulu N, Karahan O, Damburaci N, Hardwick R, Safranek P, Sujendran V, Bennett J, Afzal Z, Shrotri M, Chan B, Exarchou K, Gilbert T, Amalesh T, Mukherjee D, Mukherjee S, Wiggins TH, Kennedy R, McCain S, Harris A, Dobson G, Davies N, Wilson I, Mayo D, Bennett D, Young R, Manby P, Blencowe N, Schiller M, Byrne B, Mitton D, Wong V, Elshaer A, Cowen M, Menon V, Tan LC, McLaughlin E, Koshy R, Sharp C, Brewer H, Das N, Cox M, Al Khyatt W, Worku D, Iqbal R, Walls L, McGregor R, Fullarton G, Macdonald A, MacKay C, Craig C, Dwerryhouse S, Hornby S, Jaunoo S, Wadley M, Baker C, Saad M, Kelly M, Davies A, Di Maggio F, McKay S, Mistry P, Singhal R, Tucker O, Kapoulas S, Powell-Brett S, Davis P, Bromley G, Watson L, Verma R, Ward J, Shetty V, Ball C, Pursnani K, Sarela A, Sue Ling H, Mehta S, Hayden J, To N, Palser T, Hunter D, Supramaniam K, Butt Z, Ahmed A, Kumar S, Chaudry A, Moussa O, Kordzadeh A, Lorenzi B, Wilson M, Patil P, Noaman I, Bouras G, Evans R, Singh M, Warrilow H, Ahmad A, Tewari N, Yanni F, Couch J, Theophilidou E, Reilly JJ, Singh P, van Boxel G, Akbari K, Zanotti D, Sanders G, Wheatley T, Ariyarathenam A, Reece-Smith A, Humphreys L, Choh C, Carter N, Knight B, Pucher P, Athanasiou A, Mohamed I, Tan B, Abdulrahman M, Vickers J, Akhtar K, Chaparala R, Brown R, Alasmar MMA, Ackroyd R, Patel K, Tamhankar A, Wyman A, Walker R, Grace B, Abbassi N, Slim N, Ioannidi L, Blackshaw G, Havard T, Escofet X, Powell A, Owera A, Rashid F, Jambulingam P, Padickakudi J, Ben-Younes H, Mccormack K, Makey IA, Karush MK, Seder CW, Liptay MJ, Chmielewski G, Rosato EL, Berger AC, Zheng R, Okolo E, Singh A, Scott CD, Weyant MJ, Mitchell JD. Textbook outcome following oesophagectomy for cancer: international cohort study. Br J Surg 2022; 109:439-449. [PMID: 35194634 DOI: 10.1093/bjs/znac016] [Show More Authors] [Citation(s) in RCA: 23] [Impact Index Per Article: 7.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/27/2021] [Revised: 10/08/2021] [Accepted: 01/04/2022] [Indexed: 11/14/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Textbook outcome has been proposed as a tool for the assessment of oncological surgical care. However, an international assessment in patients undergoing oesophagectomy for oesophageal cancer has not been reported. This study aimed to assess textbook outcome in an international setting. METHODS Patients undergoing curative resection for oesophageal cancer were identified from the international Oesophagogastric Anastomosis Audit (OGAA) from April 2018 to December 2018. Textbook outcome was defined as the percentage of patients who underwent a complete tumour resection with at least 15 lymph nodes in the resected specimen and an uneventful postoperative course, without hospital readmission. A multivariable binary logistic regression model was used to identify factors independently associated with textbook outcome, and results are presented as odds ratio (OR) and 95 per cent confidence intervals (95 per cent c.i.). RESULTS Of 2159 patients with oesophageal cancer, 39.7 per cent achieved a textbook outcome. The outcome parameter 'no major postoperative complication' had the greatest negative impact on a textbook outcome for patients with oesophageal cancer, compared to other textbook outcome parameters. Multivariable analysis identified male gender and increasing Charlson comorbidity index with a significantly lower likelihood of textbook outcome. Presence of 24-hour on-call rota for oesophageal surgeons (OR 2.05, 95 per cent c.i. 1.30 to 3.22; P = 0.002) and radiology (OR 1.54, 95 per cent c.i. 1.05 to 2.24; P = 0.027), total minimally invasive oesophagectomies (OR 1.63, 95 per cent c.i. 1.27 to 2.08; P < 0.001), and chest anastomosis above azygous (OR 2.17, 95 per cent c.i. 1.58 to 2.98; P < 0.001) were independently associated with a significantly increased likelihood of textbook outcome. CONCLUSION Textbook outcome is achieved in less than 40 per cent of patients having oesophagectomy for cancer. Improvements in centralization, hospital resources, access to minimal access surgery, and adoption of newer techniques for improving lymph node yield could improve textbook outcome.
Collapse
|
11
|
Weis J, Kiemen A, Schmoor C, Hipp J, Czornik M, Reeh M, Grimminger PP, Bruns C, Hoeppner J. Study Protocol of a Prospective Multicenter Study on Patient Participation for the Clinical Trial: Surgery as Needed Versus Surgery on Principle in Post-Neoadjuvant Complete Tumor Response of Esophageal Cancer (ESORES). Front Oncol 2022; 11:789155. [PMID: 35117993 PMCID: PMC8803636 DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2021.789155] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/05/2021] [Accepted: 12/24/2021] [Indexed: 11/23/2022] Open
Abstract
Ideally, patient-centered trial information material encourages the discussion with the treating physician, and helps patients making trade-offs regarding treatment decisions In a situation of possible equivalent treatment options in terms of overall survival (OS), it can make it easier to weigh up advantages and disadvantages. Preferences for choice of treatment in esophageal cancer (EC) are complex, and no standardized assessment tools are available. We will explore patient’s factors for treatment choice and develop a comprehensive patient information leaflet for the inclusion into randomized controlled trials (RCT) on EC. We conduct a cross-sectional, observational study based on a mixed-methods design with patients suffering from non-metastatic EC with post-neoadjuvant complete response after neoadjuvant chemotherapy (nCT) or neoadjuvant chemoradiation (nCRT), to develop patient-centered trial information material. This pilot study is performed in a concept development phase and a subsequent pilot phase. We start with patient interviews (n = 10–15) in the concept development phase to evaluate patients’ needs, and develop a Preference and Decision Aid Questionnaire (PDAQ). We pre-test the PDAQ with another n = 10 patients with EC after nCT or nCRT, former patients from a self-help organization, and n = 10 medical experts for their comments on the questionnaire. In the pilot phase, a multicenter trial using the PDAQ and additional measures is carried out (n = 120). Based on evidence of a possible equivalence in terms of OS of the treatment options “surgery as needed” and “surgery on principle” in patients with post-neoadjuvant complete response of EC, this pilot study on patient participation is conducted to assess patient’s needs and preferences, and optimize patients’ inclusion in a planned RCT. The aim is to develop patient-centered trial information material for the RCT to increase patients’ consent and compliance with the randomized treatment. The trial is registered at the German Clinical Trials Register (DRKS00022050, October 15, 2020).
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Joachim Weis
- Endowed Professorship Self-Help Research, Comprehensive Cancer Center, Faculty of Medicine and Medical Center, University of Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany
- *Correspondence: Joachim Weis,
| | - Andrea Kiemen
- Endowed Professorship Self-Help Research, Comprehensive Cancer Center, Faculty of Medicine and Medical Center, University of Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany
| | - Claudia Schmoor
- Clinical Trials Unit, Faculty of Medicine and Medical Center, University of Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany
| | - Julian Hipp
- Department of General Surgery, Faculty of Medicine and Medical Center, University of Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany
| | - Manuel Czornik
- Endowed Professorship Self-Help Research, Comprehensive Cancer Center, Faculty of Medicine and Medical Center, University of Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany
| | - Matthias Reeh
- Department of General, Visceral and Thoracic Surgery, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany
| | - Peter P. Grimminger
- Department of General, Visceral and Transplantation Surgery, University Medical Center Mainz, Mainz, Germany
| | - Christiane Bruns
- Department of General, Visceral, Cancer and Transplantation Surgery, University Hospital of Cologne, Cologne, Germany
| | - Jens Hoeppner
- Clinic for Surgery, University Medical Center Schleswig-Holstein, Lübeck, Germany
| |
Collapse
|
12
|
Kamarajah SK, Griffiths EA, Phillips AW, Ruurda J, van Hillegersberg R, Hofstetter WL, Markar SR. Robotic Techniques in Esophagogastric Cancer Surgery: An Assessment of Short- and Long-Term Clinical Outcomes. Ann Surg Oncol 2021; 29:2812-2825. [PMID: 34890023 PMCID: PMC8989809 DOI: 10.1245/s10434-021-11082-y] [Citation(s) in RCA: 5] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/17/2021] [Accepted: 10/28/2021] [Indexed: 11/23/2022]
Abstract
Background Robotic esophagogastric cancer surgery is gaining widespread adoption. This population-based cohort study aimed to compare rates of textbook outcomes (TOs) and survival from robotic minimally invasive techniques for esophagogastric cancer. Methods Data from the United States National Cancer Database (NCDB) (2010–2017) were used to identify patients with non-metastatic esophageal or gastric cancer receiving open surgery (to the esophagus, n = 11,442; stomach, n = 22,183), laparoscopic surgery (to the esophagus [LAMIE], n = 4827; stomach [LAMIG], n = 6359), or robotic surgery (to the esophagus [RAMIE], n = 1657; stomach [RAMIG], n = 1718). The study defined TOs as 15 or more lymph nodes examined, margin-negative resections, hospital stay less than 21 days, no 30-day readmissions, and no 90-day mortalities. Multivariable logistic regression and Cox analyses were used to account for treatment selection bias. Results Patients receiving robotic surgery were more commonly treated in high-volume academic centers with advanced clinical T and N stage disease. From 2010 to 2017, TO rates increased for esophageal and gastric cancer treated via all surgical techniques. Compared with open surgery, significantly higher TO rates were associated with RAMIE (odds ratio [OR], 1.41; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.27–1.58) and RAMIG (OR 1.30; 95% CI 1.17–1.45). For esophagectomy, long-term survival was associated with both TO (hazard ratio [HR 0.64, 95% CI 0.60–0.67) and RAMIE (HR 0.92; 95% CI 0.84–1.00). For gastrectomy, long-term survival was associated with TO (HR 0.58; 95% CI 0.56–0.60) and both LAMIG (HR 0.89; 95% CI 0.85–0.94) and RAMIG (HR 0.88; 95% CI 0.81–0.96). Subset analysis in high-volume centers confirmed similar findings. Conclusion Despite potentially adverse learning curve effects and more advanced tumor stages captured during the study period, both RAMIE and RAMIG performed in mostly high-volume centers were associated with improved TO and long-term survival. Therefore, consideration for wider adoption but a well-designed phase 3 randomized controlled trial (RCT) is required for a full evaluation of the benefits conferred by robotic techniques for esophageal and gastric cancers. Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1245/s10434-021-11082-y.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Sivesh K Kamarajah
- Department of Upper Gastrointestinal Surgery, Queen Elizabeth Hospital Birmingham, University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Trust, Birmingham, UK.,Institute of Cancer and Genomic Sciences, College of Medical and Dental Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK
| | - Ewen A Griffiths
- Department of Upper Gastrointestinal Surgery, Queen Elizabeth Hospital Birmingham, University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Trust, Birmingham, UK.,Institute of Cancer and Genomic Sciences, College of Medical and Dental Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK
| | - Alexander W Phillips
- Northern Oesophagogastric Unit, Royal Victoria Infirmary, Newcastle University Trust Hospitals, Newcastle Upon Tyne, UK.,School of Medical Education, Newcastle University, Newcastle Upon Tyne, Tyne and Wear, UK
| | - Jelle Ruurda
- University Medical Center Utrecht, University Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands
| | | | - Wayne L Hofstetter
- Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Sheraz R Markar
- Department of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College London, London, UK. .,Department of Molecular Medicine and Surgery, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.
| |
Collapse
|
13
|
Collacott H, Soekhai V, Thomas C, Brooks A, Brookes E, Lo R, Mulnick S, Heidenreich S. A Systematic Review of Discrete Choice Experiments in Oncology Treatments. THE PATIENT 2021; 14:775-790. [PMID: 33950476 DOI: 10.1007/s40271-021-00520-4] [Citation(s) in RCA: 21] [Impact Index Per Article: 5.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Accepted: 04/17/2021] [Indexed: 10/21/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND As the number and type of cancer treatments available rises and patients live with the consequences of their disease and treatments for longer, understanding preferences for cancer care can help inform decisions about optimal treatment development, access, and care provision. Discrete choice experiments (DCEs) are commonly used as a tool to elicit stakeholder preferences; however, their implementation in oncology may be challenging if burdensome trade-offs (e.g. length of life versus quality of life) are involved and/or target populations are small. OBJECTIVES The aim of this review was to characterise DCEs relating to cancer treatments that were conducted between 1990 and March 2020. DATA SOURCES EMBASE, MEDLINE, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews were searched for relevant studies. STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA Studies were included if they implemented a DCE and reported outcomes of interest (i.e. quantitative outputs on participants' preferences for cancer treatments), but were excluded if they were not focused on pharmacological, radiological or surgical treatments (e.g. cancer screening or counselling services), were non-English, or were a secondary analysis of an included study. ANALYSIS METHODS Analysis followed a narrative synthesis, and quantitative data were summarised using descriptive statistics, including rankings of attribute importance. RESULT Seventy-nine studies were included in the review. The number of published DCEs relating to oncology grew over the review period. Studies were conducted in a range of indications (n = 19), most commonly breast (n =10, 13%) and prostate (n = 9, 11%) cancer, and most studies elicited preferences of patients (n = 59, 75%). Across reviewed studies, survival attributes were commonly ranked as most important, with overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) ranked most important in 58% and 28% of models, respectively. Preferences varied between stakeholder groups, with patients and clinicians placing greater importance on survival outcomes, and general population samples valuing health-related quality of life (HRQoL). Despite the emphasis of guidelines on the importance of using qualitative research to inform attribute selection and DCE designs, reporting on instrument development was mixed. LIMITATIONS No formal assessment of bias was conducted, with the scope of the paper instead providing a descriptive characterisation. The review only included DCEs relating to cancer treatments, and no insight is provided into other health technologies such as cancer screening. Only DCEs were included. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS Although there was variation in attribute importance between responder types, survival attributes were consistently ranked as important by both patients and clinicians. Observed challenges included the risk of attribute dominance for survival outcomes, limited sample sizes in some indications, and a lack of reporting about instrument development processes. PROTOCOL REGISTRATION PROSPERO 2020 CRD42020184232.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Hannah Collacott
- Evidera, The Ark, 2nd Floor, 201 Talgarth Road, London, W6 8BJ, UK.
| | - Vikas Soekhai
- Erasmus University, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
- Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Caitlin Thomas
- Evidera, The Ark, 2nd Floor, 201 Talgarth Road, London, W6 8BJ, UK
| | - Anne Brooks
- Evidera, 7101 Wisconsin Avenue, Suite 1400, Bethesda, MD, 20814, USA
| | - Ella Brookes
- Evidera, The Ark, 2nd Floor, 201 Talgarth Road, London, W6 8BJ, UK
| | - Rachel Lo
- Evidera, The Ark, 2nd Floor, 201 Talgarth Road, London, W6 8BJ, UK
| | - Sarah Mulnick
- Evidera, 7101 Wisconsin Avenue, Suite 1400, Bethesda, MD, 20814, USA
| | | |
Collapse
|
14
|
Sukpanich R, Sanglestsawai S, Seib CD, Gosnell JE, Shen WT, Roman SA, Sosa JA, Duh QY, Suh I. The Influence of Cosmetic Concerns on Patient Preferences for Approaches to Thyroid Lobectomy: A Discrete Choice Experiment. Thyroid 2020; 30:1306-1313. [PMID: 32204688 DOI: 10.1089/thy.2019.0821] [Citation(s) in RCA: 10] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/05/2023]
Abstract
Background: Newer transoral thyroidectomy techniques that aim to avoid scars in the neck and maximize cosmetic outcomes have become more prevalent. We conducted a discrete choice experiment (DCE) to evaluate the influence of cosmetic concerns and other factors on patients' decision-making processes when choosing among different thyroidectomy approaches. Methods: A questionnaire was developed to identify key attributes driving patient preferences around thyroidectomy approaches using mixed analyses of patient focus groups, expert opinion, and literature review. These attributes included (i) risk of recurrent laryngeal nerve (RLN) injury, (ii) risk of mental nerve injury, (iii) travel distance for surgery, (iv) out-of-pocket cost, and (v) incision site. Using fractional factorial design, discrete choice sets consisting of randomly generated hypothetical scenarios across all attributes were created. A face-to-face DCE survey was administered to patients being evaluated in clinic for thyroid lobectomy for noncancerous thyroid disease. Participants chose among scenarios constructed from the choice sets of attributes. Analyses were conducted using a mixed logit model, and the trade-offs between different attributes that patients were willing to accept were quantified. Results: The DCE was completed by 109 participants (86 [79%] women; mean age 51.3 ± 3.0 years). Overall, the risk of having RLN and/or mental nerve injury, travel distance, and cost were the most influential attributes. Participants aged ≤60 years significantly preferred an approach without a neck incision and were willing to accept an additional $2332 USD in out-of-pocket cost, 693 miles of travel distance, 0.6% increased risk of RLN injury, and 2.2% risk of mental nerve injury. Patients aged >60 years significantly preferred a conventional neck incision and were willing to pay an additional $3401 out-of-pocket and travel 1011 miles to avoid a scarless approach. Conclusions: The risk of nerve injury, travel distance, and cost were the most important drivers for patients choosing among surgical approaches for thyroidectomy. Cosmetic considerations also influenced patient choices, but in opposing ways depending on patient age.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Rupporn Sukpanich
- Endocrine Surgery Section, Department of Surgery, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, California, USA
- Department of General Surgery, Rajavithi Hospital, Rangsit University, Bangkok, Thailand
| | - Santi Sanglestsawai
- Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Kasetsart University, Bangkok, Thailand
| | - Carolyn D Seib
- Department of Surgery, Stanford University, Stanford, California, USA
| | - Jessica E Gosnell
- Endocrine Surgery Section, Department of Surgery, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, California, USA
| | - Wen T Shen
- Endocrine Surgery Section, Department of Surgery, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, California, USA
| | - Sanziana A Roman
- Endocrine Surgery Section, Department of Surgery, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, California, USA
| | - Julie A Sosa
- Endocrine Surgery Section, Department of Surgery, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, California, USA
| | - Quan-Yang Duh
- Endocrine Surgery Section, Department of Surgery, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, California, USA
| | - Insoo Suh
- Endocrine Surgery Section, Department of Surgery, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, California, USA
| |
Collapse
|
15
|
Mott DJ, Chami N, Tervonen T. Reporting Quality of Marginal Rates of Substitution in Discrete Choice Experiments That Elicit Patient Preferences. VALUE IN HEALTH : THE JOURNAL OF THE INTERNATIONAL SOCIETY FOR PHARMACOECONOMICS AND OUTCOMES RESEARCH 2020; 23:979-984. [PMID: 32828225 DOI: 10.1016/j.jval.2020.04.1831] [Citation(s) in RCA: 7] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/20/2020] [Revised: 03/27/2020] [Accepted: 04/19/2020] [Indexed: 05/10/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Discrete choice experiments (DCEs) are commonly used to elicit patient preferences as marginal rates of substitution (MRSs) between treatment or health service attributes. Because these studies are increasing in importance, it is vital that uncertainty around MRS estimates is reported. OBJECTIVE To review recently published DCE studies that elicit patient preferences in relation to MRS reporting and to explore the accuracy of using other reported information to estimate the uncertainty of the MRSs. METHODS A systematic literature review of DCEs conducted with patients between 2014 and July 2019 was performed. The number of studies reporting coefficients, MRSs, standard errors (SEs), and confidence intervals was recorded. If all information was reported, studies were included in an analysis to determine the impact of estimating the SEs of MRSs using coefficients and assuming zero covariance, to determine the impact of this assumption. RESULTS Two hundred and thirty-two patient DCEs were identified in the review; 34.1% (n = 79) reported 1 or more MRS and, of these, only 62.0% (n = 49) provided an estimate of the uncertainty. Of these studies, 16 contained enough information for inclusion in the analysis, providing 116 datapoints. Actual SEs were smaller than estimated SEs in 75.0% of cases (n = 87), and estimated SEs were within 25% of the actual SE in 59.5% of cases (n = 69). CONCLUSION Uncertainty of MRS estimates is unreported in a substantial proportion of recently published DCE studies. Estimating the SE of a MRS by solely using the SEs of the utility coefficients is likely to lead to biased estimates of the precision of patient trade-offs.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- David J Mott
- Office of Health Economics, London, England, UK.
| | - Nour Chami
- City, University of London, London, England, UK; Evidera, London, England, UK
| | - Tommi Tervonen
- Evidera, London, England, UK; Department of Epidemiology, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
16
|
Jestin Hannan C, Linder G, Kung CH, Johansson J, Lindblad M, Hedberg J. Geographical differences in cancer treatment and survival for patients with oesophageal and gastro-oesophageal junctional cancers. Br J Surg 2020; 107:1500-1509. [PMID: 32484241 DOI: 10.1002/bjs.11671] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/21/2020] [Revised: 03/31/2020] [Accepted: 04/14/2020] [Indexed: 12/14/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Only around one-quarter of patients with cancer of the oesophagus and the gastro-oesophageal junction (GOJ) undergo surgical resection. This population-based study investigated the rates of treatment with curative intent and resection, and their association with survival. METHODS Patients diagnosed with oesophageal and GOJ cancer between 2006 and 2015 in Sweden were identified from the National Register for Oesophageal and Gastric Cancer (NREV). The NREV was cross-linked with several national registries to obtain information on additional exposures. The annual proportion of patients undergoing treatment with curative intent and surgical resection in each county was calculated, and the counties divided into groups with low, intermediate and high rates. Treatment with curative intent was defined as definitive chemoradiation therapy or surgery, with or without neoadjuvant oncological treatment. Overall survival was analysed using a multilevel model based on county of residence at the time of diagnosis. RESULTS Some 5959 patients were included, of whom 1503 (25·2 per cent) underwent surgery. Median overall survival after diagnosis was 7·7, 8·8 and 11·1 months respectively in counties with low, intermediate and high rates of treatment with curative intent. Corresponding survival times for the surgical resection groups were 7·4, 9·3 and 11·0 months. In the multivariable analysis, a higher rate of treatment with curative intent (time ratio 1·17, 95 per cent c.i. 1·05 to 1·30; P < 0·001) and a higher resection rate (time ratio 1·24, 1·12 to 1·37; P < 0·001) were associated with improved survival after adjustment for relevant confounders. CONCLUSION Patients diagnosed in counties with higher rates of treatment with curative intent and higher rates of surgery had better survival.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- C Jestin Hannan
- Department of Surgical Sciences, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden
| | - G Linder
- Department of Surgical Sciences, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden
| | - C-H Kung
- Department of Clinical Science, Intervention and Technology Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.,Departments of Surgery, Skellefteå County Hospital, Skellefteå, Sweden
| | | | - M Lindblad
- Department of Clinical Science, Intervention and Technology Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden
| | - J Hedberg
- Department of Surgical Sciences, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden
| |
Collapse
|
17
|
O'Connell L, Coleman M, Kharyntiuk N, Walsh TN. Quality of life in patients with upper GI malignancies managed by a strategy of chemoradiotherapy alone versus surgery. Surg Oncol 2019; 30:33-39. [PMID: 31500782 DOI: 10.1016/j.suronc.2019.05.021] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/11/2018] [Revised: 04/09/2019] [Accepted: 05/25/2019] [Indexed: 12/17/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES Neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (nCRT) induces a pathological complete response (pCR) in 25-85% of oesophago-gastric cancer. As surgery entails morbidity and mortality risks and quality of life (QL) impairment, its avoidance in patients without residual disease is desirable. This study aimed to compare quality of life of patients with a cCR who chose surveillance with those who chose surgery. METHODS Four groups of patients were studied. Group 1(n = 31) were controls; Group 2 (n = 26) had chemoradiotherapy only; Group 3 (n = 31) had oesophagectomy after nCRT; Group 4 (n = 26) had gastrectomy alone. A 33-point novel questionnaire was administered at two 3 month time points. Participants were also interviewed with a validated questionnaire. RESULTS Mean(±sd) quality of life scores in cCR patients offered surveillance (28.9 ± 4.5) were superior to patients undergoing oesophagectomy (32.3 ± 58. p=0.042) or gastrectomy (33.19 ± 5.9, p=0.004). This result was replicated in the validated questionnaire (p=0.017). There was a trend towards increased reflux-related respiratory symptoms in the oesophagectomy group (7.3 ± 2.2 vs 6.5 ± 1.9; p=0.396) and towards early dumping (8.2 ± 1.4 vs 7.1 ± 1.; p=0.239) and vagotomy-related symptoms (1.82 ± 0.9 vs 1.4 ± 0.6; p=0.438) in the gastrectomy group. CONCLUSIONS Avoidance of surgery in cCR patients is rewarded with a superior quality of life to those undergoing surgery.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Lauren O'Connell
- Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland, Department of Surgery, Connolly Hospital, Blanchardstown, Dublin 15, Ireland.
| | - Mary Coleman
- Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland, Department of Surgery, Connolly Hospital, Blanchardstown, Dublin 15, Ireland
| | - N Kharyntiuk
- Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland, Department of Surgery, Connolly Hospital, Blanchardstown, Dublin 15, Ireland
| | - Thomas N Walsh
- Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland, Department of Surgery, Connolly Hospital, Blanchardstown, Dublin 15, Ireland; Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland, Department of Surgery, Beaumont Hospital, Dublin 9, Ireland
| |
Collapse
|
18
|
Soekhai V, de Bekker-Grob EW, Ellis AR, Vass CM. Discrete Choice Experiments in Health Economics: Past, Present and Future. PHARMACOECONOMICS 2019; 37:201-226. [PMID: 30392040 PMCID: PMC6386055 DOI: 10.1007/s40273-018-0734-2] [Citation(s) in RCA: 464] [Impact Index Per Article: 77.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 05/03/2023]
Abstract
OBJECTIVES Discrete choice experiments (DCEs) are increasingly advocated as a way to quantify preferences for health. However, increasing support does not necessarily result in increasing quality. Although specific reviews have been conducted in certain contexts, there exists no recent description of the general state of the science of health-related DCEs. The aim of this paper was to update prior reviews (1990-2012), to identify all health-related DCEs and to provide a description of trends, current practice and future challenges. METHODS A systematic literature review was conducted to identify health-related empirical DCEs published between 2013 and 2017. The search strategy and data extraction replicated prior reviews to allow the reporting of trends, although additional extraction fields were incorporated. RESULTS Of the 7877 abstracts generated, 301 studies met the inclusion criteria and underwent data extraction. In general, the total number of DCEs per year continued to increase, with broader areas of application and increased geographic scope. Studies reported using more sophisticated designs (e.g. D-efficient) with associated software (e.g. Ngene). The trend towards using more sophisticated econometric models also continued. However, many studies presented sophisticated methods with insufficient detail. Qualitative research methods continued to be a popular approach for identifying attributes and levels. CONCLUSIONS The use of empirical DCEs in health economics continues to grow. However, inadequate reporting of methodological details inhibits quality assessment. This may reduce decision-makers' confidence in results and their ability to act on the findings. How and when to integrate health-related DCE outcomes into decision-making remains an important area for future research.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Vikas Soekhai
- Section of Health Technology Assessment (HTA) and Erasmus Choice Modelling Centre (ECMC), Erasmus School of Health Policy & Management (ESHPM), Erasmus University Rotterdam (EUR), P.O. Box 1738, Rotterdam, 3000 DR The Netherlands
- Department of Public Health, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center, P.O. Box 2040, Rotterdam, 3000 CA The Netherlands
| | - Esther W. de Bekker-Grob
- Section of Health Technology Assessment (HTA) and Erasmus Choice Modelling Centre (ECMC), Erasmus School of Health Policy & Management (ESHPM), Erasmus University Rotterdam (EUR), P.O. Box 1738, Rotterdam, 3000 DR The Netherlands
| | - Alan R. Ellis
- Department of Social Work, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC USA
| | - Caroline M. Vass
- Manchester Centre for Health Economics, The University of Manchester, Manchester, UK
| |
Collapse
|
19
|
Bien DR, Danner M, Vennedey V, Civello D, Evers SM, Hiligsmann M. Patients' Preferences for Outcome, Process and Cost Attributes in Cancer Treatment: A Systematic Review of Discrete Choice Experiments. THE PATIENT 2017; 10:553-565. [PMID: 28364387 PMCID: PMC5605613 DOI: 10.1007/s40271-017-0235-y] [Citation(s) in RCA: 65] [Impact Index Per Article: 8.1] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 02/08/2023]
Abstract
INTRODUCTION As several studies have been conducted to elicit patients' preferences for cancer treatment, it is important to provide an overview and synthesis of these studies. This study aimed to systematically review discrete choice experiments (DCEs) about patients' preferences for cancer treatment and assessed the relative importance of outcome, process and cost attributes. METHODS A systematic literature review was conducted using PubMed and EMBASE to identify all DCEs investigating patients' preferences for cancer treatment between January 2010 and April 2016. Data were extracted using a predefined extraction sheet, and a reporting quality assessment was applied to all studies. Attributes were classified into outcome, process and cost attributes, and their relative importance was assessed. RESULTS A total of 28 DCEs were identified. More than half of the studies (56%) received an aggregate score lower than 4 on the PREFS (Purpose, Respondents, Explanation, Findings, Significance) 5-point scale. Most attributes were related to outcome (70%), followed by process (25%) and cost (5%). Outcome attributes were most often significant (81%), followed by process (73%) and cost (67%). The relative importance of outcome attributes was ranked highest in 82% of the cases where it was included, followed by cost (43%) and process (12%). CONCLUSION This systematic review suggests that attributes related to cancer treatment outcomes are the most important for patients. Process and cost attributes were less often included in studies but were still (but less) important to patients in most studies. Clinicians and decision makers should be aware that attribute importance might be influenced by level selection for that attribute.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Daniela R Bien
- Faculty of Health Medicine and Life Sciences, Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands
| | - Marion Danner
- Institute of Health Economics and Clinical Epidemiology, University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany
| | - Vera Vennedey
- Institute of Health Economics and Clinical Epidemiology, University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany
| | - Daniele Civello
- Institute of Health Economics and Clinical Epidemiology, University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany
| | - Silvia M Evers
- Department of Health Services Research, School for Public Health and Primary Care (CAPHRI), Maastricht University, PO Box 6161, 6200 MD, Maastricht, The Netherlands
| | - Mickaël Hiligsmann
- Department of Health Services Research, School for Public Health and Primary Care (CAPHRI), Maastricht University, PO Box 6161, 6200 MD, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
| |
Collapse
|
20
|
Impact of Extent of Lymphadenectomy on Survival, Post Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy and Transthoracic Esophagectomy. Ann Surg 2017; 265:750-756. [DOI: 10.1097/sla.0000000000001737] [Citation(s) in RCA: 50] [Impact Index Per Article: 6.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 02/07/2023]
|
21
|
Busweiler LAD, Schouwenburg MG, van Berge Henegouwen MI, Kolfschoten NE, de Jong PC, Rozema T, Wijnhoven BPL, van Hillegersberg R, Wouters MWJM, van Sandick JW. Textbook outcome as a composite measure in oesophagogastric cancer surgery. Br J Surg 2017; 104:742-750. [PMID: 28240357 DOI: 10.1002/bjs.10486] [Citation(s) in RCA: 214] [Impact Index Per Article: 26.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/22/2016] [Revised: 07/19/2016] [Accepted: 12/08/2016] [Indexed: 01/26/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Quality assurance is acknowledged as a crucial factor in the assessment of oncological surgical care. The aim of this study was to develop a composite measure of multiple outcome parameters defined as 'textbook outcome', to assess quality of care for patients undergoing oesophagogastric cancer surgery. METHODS Patients with oesophagogastric cancer, operated on with the intent of curative resection between 2011 and 2014, were identified from a national database (Dutch Upper Gastrointestinal Cancer Audit). Textbook outcome was defined as the percentage of patients who underwent a complete tumour resection with at least 15 lymph nodes in the resected specimen and an uneventful postoperative course, without hospital readmission. Hospital variation in textbook outcome was analysed after adjustment for case-mix factors. RESULTS In total, 2748 patients with oesophageal cancer and 1772 with gastric cancer were included in this study. A textbook outcome was achieved in 29·7 per cent of patients with oesophageal cancer and 32·1 per cent of those with gastric cancer. Adjusted textbook outcome rates varied from 8·5 to 52·4 per cent between hospitals. The outcome parameter 'at least 15 lymph nodes examined' had the greatest negative impact on a textbook outcome both for patients with oesophageal cancer and for those with gastric cancer. CONCLUSION Most patients did not achieve a textbook outcome and there was wide variation between hospitals.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- L A D Busweiler
- Dutch Institute for Clinical Auditing, Leiden University Medical Centre, Leiden, The Netherlands.,Department of General Surgery, Leiden University Medical Centre, Leiden, The Netherlands
| | - M G Schouwenburg
- Dutch Institute for Clinical Auditing, Leiden University Medical Centre, Leiden, The Netherlands.,Department of General Surgery, Leiden University Medical Centre, Leiden, The Netherlands
| | | | - N E Kolfschoten
- Dutch Institute for Clinical Auditing, Leiden University Medical Centre, Leiden, The Netherlands
| | - P C de Jong
- Department of Medical Oncology, St Antonius Hospital, Nieuwegein, The Netherlands
| | - T Rozema
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Institute Verbeeten, Tilburg, The Netherlands
| | - B P L Wijnhoven
- Department of General Surgery, Erasmus Medical Centre, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | - R van Hillegersberg
- Department of General Surgery, University Medical Centre Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands
| | - M W J M Wouters
- Dutch Institute for Clinical Auditing, Leiden University Medical Centre, Leiden, The Netherlands.,Department of Surgical Oncology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute/Antoni van Leeuwenhoek Hospital, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - J W van Sandick
- Department of Surgical Oncology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute/Antoni van Leeuwenhoek Hospital, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | | |
Collapse
|
22
|
Lee JY, Kim K, Lee YS, Kim HY, Nam EJ, Kim S, Kim SW, Kim JW, Kim YT. Treatment Preferences for Routine Lymphadenectomy Versus No Lymphadenectomy in Early-Stage Endometrial Cancer. Ann Surg Oncol 2016; 24:1336-1342. [PMID: 28000075 DOI: 10.1245/s10434-016-5729-7] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/16/2016] [Indexed: 11/18/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Debate on the value of lymphadenectomy continues in endometrial cancer. The aim of this study was to investigate patient and clinician preferences for routine lymphadenectomy versus no lymphadenectomy in the surgical management of endometrial cancer. METHODS A discrete choice experiment and trade-off question were designed and distributed to 103 endometrial cancer patients and 90 gynecologic oncologists. Participant preferences were quantified with regression analysis using scenarios based on three attributes: 5-year progression-free survival and the rates of acute and chronic complication. A trade-off technique varying the risk of recurrence for no lymphadenectomy was used to quantify any additional risk of recurrence that these participants would accept to receive no lymphadenectomy instead of routine lymphadenectomy. RESULTS On the basis of discrete choice experiment, the recurrence rate and lymphedema risk had a statistically significant impact on respondents' preference. The trade-off question showed that the median additional accepted risk of having no lymphadenectomy was 2.8% for gynecologic oncologists (0.5-14%) and 3.0% for patients (0.5-10%), but this difference was not significant (p = 0.620). Patients who were younger or had a higher education level or no history of delivery or shorter duration since diagnosis were prepared to accept higher additional risks of having no lymphadenectomy. CONCLUSIONS Our results show that the majority of endometrial cancer patients and clinicians will accept a small amount of recurrence risk to reduce the incidence of lymphedema. Regarding preference heterogeneity among patients, our results show that it is important for surgeons to take a patient-tailored approach when discussing surgical management.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jung-Yun Lee
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Institute of Women's Life Medical Science, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea
| | - Kyunghoon Kim
- Korea Information Society Development Institute, Seoul, Chungcheongbuk-do, Korea
| | - Yun Shin Lee
- KAIST College of Business, Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology, Seoul, Korea
| | - Hyo Young Kim
- KAIST College of Business, Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology, Seoul, Korea
| | - Eun Ji Nam
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Institute of Women's Life Medical Science, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea
| | - Sunghoon Kim
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Institute of Women's Life Medical Science, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea
| | - Sang Wun Kim
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Institute of Women's Life Medical Science, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea
| | - Jae Weon Kim
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea
| | - Young Tae Kim
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Institute of Women's Life Medical Science, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.
| |
Collapse
|
23
|
Mansfield C, Srinivas S, Chen C, Hauber AB, Hariharan S, Matczak E, Sandin R. The effect of information on preferences for treatments of metastatic renal cell carcinoma. Curr Med Res Opin 2016; 32:1827-1838. [PMID: 27404275 DOI: 10.1080/03007995.2016.1211521] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 10/21/2022]
Abstract
OBJECTIVE Limited information exists regarding the effect of uncertainty in outcomes on patient preferences for metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) treatments. This study tested the effect on patients' preferences and willingness to tolerate toxicities when patients were provided with information about possible correlations between treatment-related toxicities and efficacy. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS Patients with self-reported RCC diagnosis completed an online survey. Respondents were randomly assigned to the information treatment (i.e. information about the possible correlation). Medicines were defined by progression-free survival (PFS), three toxicities potentially correlated with PFS, and one toxicity uncorrelated with PFS. Direct-elicitation questions measured willingness to tolerate the toxicities, preferences for medicines with higher toxicity but a higher chance of longer PFS, and preferences for medicines with higher toxicity during treatment and a 2 week dosing schedule break. A discrete-choice experiment (DCE) tested the effect of information on relative preferences for medication attributes. RESULTS A total of 378 RCC patients completed the survey. Respondents who received the information reported greater willingness to accept more severe toxicities and preferred treatment with a higher chance of longer PFS but more severe toxicities. The DCE results were consistent with the hypothesis that the information increased willingness to tolerate toxicities; however, the results were only statistically significant for changes in fatigue (none to severe; p < 0.05) and hypertension (none to manageable; p < 0.05). LIMITATIONS Online recruitment through patient support groups may limit generalizability to the population of patients with mRCC who would be candidates for the targeted therapies. CONCLUSIONS The findings suggest that RCC patients have diverse preferences but may be willing to continue targeted therapies, even in the presence of severe toxicities, if there is a chance of improved clinical benefit. Physicians should provide patients with comprehensive information about medication features, including toxicities and efficacy (and their potential correlation), to improve compliance and optimize outcomes.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Sandy Srinivas
- b Stanford University Medical Center , Stanford , CA , USA
| | | | - A Brett Hauber
- a RTI Health Solutions , Research Triangle Park , NC , USA
| | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
24
|
Mott DJ, Najafzadeh M. Whose preferences should be elicited for use in health-care decision-making? A case study using anticoagulant therapy. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res 2015; 16:33-9. [PMID: 26560704 DOI: 10.1586/14737167.2016.1115722] [Citation(s) in RCA: 16] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/08/2022]
Abstract
The question of whose preferences to elicit in health-state valuation has been widely discussed in the literature. The importance of this debate lies in the fact that health-state utility values are used in health technology assessment (HTA); therefore, an individual's preferences can influence decision-making. If preferences differ across groups, making decisions based on one group's preferences may be suboptimal for the other. Preferences for benefits, risks, experiences and health states associated with anticoagulant therapies have been elicited by researchers due to the underutilization of warfarin and the introduction of non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants. The majority of existing studies elicit preferences from patient populations as opposed to other stakeholders such as the general public. This paper extends the preference debate by using this clinical area as a case study, with a particular focus on HTA guidelines and the recent advocacy of the use of preference information in benefit-risk assessments.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- David John Mott
- a Health Economics Group, Institute of Health & Society , Newcastle University , Newcastle upon Tyne , UK
| | - Mehdi Najafzadeh
- b Division of Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharmacoeconomics , Brigham & Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School , Boston , MA , USA
| |
Collapse
|