Patients' preferences, experiences and expectations with wait time until surgery in gynaecological oncology: a mixed-methods study in two gynaecological oncological centres in the Netherlands.

OBJECTIVES: Patient-centredness of care during wait time before surgery can be improved. In this study we aimed to assess (1) patients' experiences with and preferences regarding wait time before surgery; (2) the impact of wait time on quality of life (QoL) and (3) which factors influence patients' wait time experience. DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS: We performed an exploratory sequential mixed-methods study among women with gynaecological cancer in two tertiary hospitals. We conducted semistructured interviews and identified aspects of QoL and factors that influenced wait time acceptability through thematic analysis. We developed a questionnaire from this thematic analysis which was completed by 97 women. Descriptive statistics and univariate and multivariate regression analyses were performed. RESULTS: Average ideal wait time was 3.5 weeks (±1.7 weeks), minimum and maximum acceptable wait times were 2.2 and 5.6 weeks. Many patients scored above the threshold of the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale for anxiety (48%) or depression (34%), had sleeping problems (56%) or experienced pain (54%). A number of factors were more common in patients who indicated that their wait time had been too long: low education level (OR 7.4, 95% CI 0.5 to 5.0, p=0.007), time to surgery >4 weeks (OR 7.0, 95% CI 0.8 to 4.4, p=0.002) and experienced sleep disturbance (OR 3.27, 95% CI 0.0 to 3.1, p=0.05). If patients expectation of wait time was >4 weeks (OR 0.20, 95% CI -4.0 to -0.5 p=0008) or if patients experienced pain (OR 0.26, 95% CI -3.6 to -0.3, p=0.03), they less frequently indicated that wait time had been too long. CONCLUSION: To improve patient-centredness of care, healthcare providers should aim to reduce wait time to 3-4 weeks and ensure that patients are well informed about the length of wait time and are aware of high levels of anxiety, depression and pain during this time. Future studies should evaluate what interventions can improve QoL during wait time.

The Additional Role of F18-FDG PET/CT in Characterizing MRI-Diagnosed Tumor Deposits in Locally Advanced Rectal Cancer.

Rationale: F18-FDG PET/CT may be helpful in baseline staging of patients with high-risk LARC presenting with vascular tumor deposits (TDs), in addition to standard pelvic MRI and CT staging. Methods: All patients with locally advanced rectal cancer that had TDs on their baseline MRI of the pelvis and had a baseline F18-FDG PET/CT between May 2016 and December 2020 were included in this retrospective study. TDs as well as lymph nodes identified on pelvic MRI were correlated to the corresponding nodular structures on a standard F18-FDG PET/CT, including measurements of nodular SUVmax and SUVmean. In addition, the effects of partial volume and spill-in on SUV measurements were studied. Results: A total number of 62 patients were included, in which 198 TDs were identified as well as 106 lymph nodes (both normal and metastatic). After ruling out partial volume effects and spill-in, 23 nodular structures remained that allowed for reliable measurement of SUVmax: 19 TDs and 4 LNs. The median SUVmax between TDs and LNs was not significantly different (p = 0.096): 4.6 (range 0.8 to 11.3) versus 2.8 (range 1.9 to 3.9). For the median SUVmean, there was a trend towards a significant difference (p = 0.08): 3.9 (range 0.7 to 7.8) versus 2.3 (range 1.5 to 3.4). Most nodular structures showing either an SUVmax or SUVmean ≥ 4 were characterized as TDs on MRI, while only two were characterized as LNs. Conclusions: SUV measurements may help in separating TDs from lymph node metastases or normal lymph nodes in patients with high-risk LARC.

Diagnostic accuracy of CT for local staging of colon cancer: A nationwide study in the Netherlands.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the accuracy of computed tomography (CT)-based staging in selecting high-risk colon cancer patients who would benefit from neoadjuvant chemotherapy while avoiding overtreatment. METHODS: Data of adult patients diagnosed with non-metastatic primary colon cancer in 2005-2020, who underwent surgical resection without neoadjuvant chemotherapy, were retrospectively collected from the Netherlands Cancer Registry. Agreement between clinical and pathological evaluation for each T and N stage was calculated. Sensitivity and specificity analyses were conducted to predict T3-T4 and N1-N2 stages, with histopathology as the reference standard. RESULTS: Data from 44,471 patients (median age, 71 years, 50% female) were evaluated. We included 38,915 patients with complete T stage and 39,565 patients with complete N stage for analyses. The overall clinical-pathological agreement for T stage was 59% and for N stage 57%. The sensitivity and specificity of CT to detect T3-T4 tumours were 80% (95% confidence interval (CI): 0.79, 0.80) and 76% (95% CI: 0.75, 0.77), respectively, with a positive predictive value (PPV) of 92% (95% CI: 0.92, 0.92). The sensitivity and specificity of CT to detect N1-N2 category were 62% (95% CI: 0.61, 0.63) and 70% (95% CI: 0.69, 0.71), respectively, with PPV 60% (95% CI: 0.59, 0.60). CONCLUSION: CT-based staging shows limited accuracy in selecting colon cancer patients who would benefit from neoadjuvant therapy without risking overtreatment. Detection of lymph node metastases with CT remains unreliable.

Locally recurrent rectal cancer: Oncological outcomes for patients with a pathological complete response after neoadjuvant therapy.

BACKGROUND: For patients with locally recurrent rectal cancer, it is an ongoing pursuit to establish factors predicting or improving oncological outcomes. In locally advanced rectal cancer, a pCR appears to be associated with improved outcomes. The aim of this retrospective cohort study was to compare the oncological outcomes of patients with locally recurrent rectal cancer with and without a pCR. METHODS: Patients who underwent neoadjuvant treatment and surgery for locally recurrent rectal cancer with curative intent between January 2004 and June 2020 at a tertiary referral hospital were analysed. Primary outcomes included overall survival, disease-free survival, metastasis-free survival, and local re-recurrence-free survival, stratified according to whether the patient had a pCR. RESULTS: Of a total of 345 patients, 51 (14.8 per cent) had a pCR. Median follow-up was 36 (i.q.r. 16-60) months. The 3-year overall survival rate was 77 per cent for patients with a pCR and 51.1 per cent for those without (P < 0.001). The 3-year disease-free survival rate was 56 per cent for patients with a pCR and 26.1 per cent for those without (P < 0.001). The 3-year local re-recurrence-free survival rate was 82 and 44 per cent respectively (P < 0.001). Surgical procedures (for example soft tissue, sacrum, and urogenital organ resections) and postoperative complications were comparable between patients with and without a pCR. CONCLUSION: This study showed that patients with a pCR have superior oncological outcomes to those without a pCR. It may therefore be safe to consider a watch-and-wait approach in highly selected patients, potentially improving quality of life by omitting extensive surgical procedures without compromising oncological outcomes.

Value-based health care in obstetrics.

RATIONALE, AIMS, AND OBJECTIVES: We strive to maximize outcomes that are relevant to the women who deliver in our hospital. We demonstrate a practical method of using value-based health care (VBHC) concepts to analyse how care can be improved. METHOD: Using International Consortium of Health Outcome Measurements (ICHOM) set, a practical outcome set was constructed for women who go into spontaneous labour at term of a singleton in cephalic presentation and used for benchmarking. We included data on interventions that are major drivers of outcomes. Data from two hospitals in Amsterdam and for The Netherlands for 2011 to 2015 were collected. RESULTS: Benchmarking of readily available data helped identify a number of statistically significant and clinically relevant differences in obstetric outcomes. Caesarean section rate was significantly different at 13.7% in hospital 2 compared with 11.5% in hospital 1 with similar neonatal outcomes. Third and fourth degree tearing rates were significantly higher for hospital 1 at 5.5% compared with 3.6% for hospital 2 and the national average of 3.5%. On the basis of the guidelines, literature, and discussion, initiatives on how to improve these outcomes were then identified. These include caesarean section audit and guidelines regarding caesarean section decision making. In order to reduce the rate of third and fourth degree tearing, routine episiotomy on vaginal operative deliveries was introduced, and a training programme was set up to make care providers more aware of risk factors and potential preventive measures. CONCLUSION: Defining, measuring, and comparing relevant outcomes enable care providers to identify improvements. Collection and comparison of readily available data can provide insights in where care can be improved. Insights from literature and comparison of care practices and processes can lead to how care can be improved. Continuous monitoring of outcomes and expanding the set of outcomes that is readily available are key in the process towards value-based care provision.