Textbook outcome as a composite measure in oesophagogastric cancer surgery.

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.

Early outcomes from the Dutch Upper Gastrointestinal Cancer Audit.

BACKGROUND: In 2011, the Dutch Upper Gastrointestinal Cancer Audit (DUCA) group began nationwide registration of all patients undergoing surgery with the intention of resection for oesophageal or gastric cancer. The aim of this study was to describe the initiation and implementation of this process along with an overview of the results. METHODS: The DUCA is part of the Dutch Institute for Clinical Auditing. The audit provides (surgical) teams with reliable, weekly updated, benchmarked information on process and (case mix-adjusted) outcome measures. To accomplish this, a web-based registration was designed, based on a set of predefined quality measures. RESULTS: Between 2011 and 2014, a total of 2786 patients with oesophageal cancer and 1887 with gastric cancer were registered. Case ascertainment approached 100 per cent for patients registered in 2013. The percentage of patients with oesophageal cancer starting treatment within 5 weeks of diagnosis increased significantly over time from 32·5 per cent in 2011 to 41·0 per cent in 2014 (P < 0·001). The percentage of patients with a minimum of 15 examined lymph nodes in the resected specimen also increased significantly for both oesophageal cancer (from 50·3 per cent in 2011 to 73·0 per cent in 2014; P < 0·001) and gastric cancer (from 47·5 per cent in 2011 to 73·6 per cent in 2014; P < 0·001). Postoperative mortality remained stable (around 4·0 per cent) for patients with oesophageal cancer, and decreased for patients with gastric cancer (from 8·0 per cent in 2011 to 4·0 per cent in 2014; P = 0·031). CONCLUSION: Nationwide implementation of the DUCA has been successful. The results indicate a positive trend for various process and outcome measures.

International benchmarking in oesophageal and gastric cancer surgery.

Background: Benchmarking on an international level might lead to improved outcomes at a national level. The aim of this study was to compare treatment and surgical outcome data from the Swedish National Register for Oesophageal and Gastric Cancer (NREV) and the Dutch Upper Gastrointestinal Cancer Audit (DUCA). Methods: All patients with primary oesophageal or gastric cancer who underwent a resection and were registered in NREV or DUCA between 2012 and 2014 were included. Differences in 30-day mortality were analysed using case mix-adjusted multivariable logistic regression. Results: In total, 4439 patients underwent oesophagectomy (2509 patients) or gastrectomy (1930 patients). Estimated resection rates were comparable. Swedish patients were older but had less advanced disease and less co-morbidity than Dutch patients. Neoadjuvant treatment rates were lower in Sweden than in the Netherlands, both for patients who underwent oesophagectomy (68·6 versus 90·0 per cent respectively; P < 0·001) and for those having gastrectomy (38·3 versus 56·6 per cent; P < 0·001). In Sweden, transthoracic oesophagectomy was performed in 94·7 per cent of patients, whereas in the Netherlands, a transhiatal approach was undertaken in 35·8 per cent. Higher annual procedural volumes per hospital were observed in the Netherlands. Adjusted 30-day and/or in-hospital mortality after gastrectomy was statistically significantly lower in Sweden than in the Netherlands (odds ratio 0·53, 95 per cent c.i. 0·29 to 0·95). Conclusion: For oesophageal and gastric cancer, there are differences in patient, tumour and treatment characteristics between Sweden and the Netherlands. Postoperative mortality in patients with gastric cancer was lower in Sweden.

Factors contributing to variation in the use of multimodality treatment in patients with gastric cancer: A Dutch population based study.

BACKGROUND: Substantial variation in the use of (neo) adjuvant treatment in patients with gastric cancer exists. The aim of this study was to identify underlying (organizational and process) factors associated with the use of perioperative therapy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with resectable gastric cancer who underwent surgery between 2012 and 2014 were selected from the Dutch Upper gastrointestinal Cancer Audit (DUCA). The proportion of perioperatively treated patients was defined per hospital. Five hospitals with the lowest percentage (LP group) and 5 hospitals with the highest percentage (HP group) of perioperative therapy were identified. In the selected hospitals additional information was obtained from patients' medical records using a structured list with predefined variables. RESULTS: In total, 429 patients (231 in LP group, 198 in HP group) from 9 different hospitals were included. Perioperative therapy was given in 16.0% of patients in the LP group compared to 40.4% in the HP group. In the LP group, patients were enrolled in a clinical trial less frequently (10.8% versus 26.8%, P<.001), and a higher percentage grade III-IV toxicity was observed during neoadjuvant treatment (25.7% versus 46.3%, P=.007). Multivariable analysis showed that, besides known casemix factors, consultation with ≥3 upper GI specialists prior to treatment decision was positively associated with initiating perioperative therapy (OR 2.08, 95% CI 1.19-3.66). CONCLUSION: Results of this study confirm considerable hospital variation in the use of perioperative therapy in patients with gastric cancer. Besides known casemix factors, use of perioperative therapy was associated with the level of involvement of multidisciplinary care.

Hospital variation and the impact of postoperative complications on the use of perioperative chemo(radio)therapy in resectable gastric cancer. Results from the Dutch Upper GI Cancer Audit.

BACKGROUND: Dutch national guidelines on the diagnosis and treatment of gastric cancer recommend the use of perioperative chemotherapy in patients with resectable gastric cancer. However, adjuvant chemotherapy is often not administered. The aim of this study was to evaluate hospital variation on the probability to receive adjuvant chemotherapy and to identify associated factors with special attention to postoperative complications. METHODS: All patients who received neoadjuvant chemotherapy and underwent an elective surgical resection for stage IB-IVa (M0) gastric adenocarcinoma between 2011 and 2015 were identified from a national database (Dutch Upper GI Cancer Audit). A multivariable linear mixed model was used to evaluate case-mix adjusted hospital variation and to identify factors associated with adjuvant therapy. RESULTS: Of all surgically treated gastric cancer patients who received neoadjuvant chemotherapy (n = 882), 68% received adjuvant chemo(radio)therapy. After adjusting for case-mix and random variation, a large hospital variation in the administration rates for adjuvant was observed (OR range 0.31-7.1). In multivariable analysis, weight loss, a poor health status and failure of neoadjuvant chemotherapy completion were strongly associated with an increased likelihood of adjuvant therapy omission. Patients with severe postoperative complications had a threefold increased likelihood of adjuvant therapy omission (OR 3.07 95% CI 2.04-4.65). CONCLUSION: Despite national guidelines, considerable hospital variation was observed in the probability of receiving adjuvant chemo(radio)therapy. Postoperative complications were strongly associated with adjuvant chemo(radio)therapy omission, underlining the need to further reduce perioperative morbidity in gastric cancer surgery.