Better stoma care using the Stoma App: does it help? A first randomized double-blind clinical trial on the effect of mobile healthcare on quality of life in stoma patients.

BACKGROUND: Receiving a stoma significantly impacts patients' quality of life. Coping with this new situation can be difficult, which may result in a variety of physical and psychosocial problems. It is essential to provide adequate guidance to help patients cope with their stoma, as this positively influences self-efficacy in return. Higher self-efficacy reduces psychosocial problems increasing patient's quality of life. This study investigates whether a new mobile application, the Stoma App, improves quality of life. And if personalized guidance, timed support, and peer contact offered as an in-app surplus makes a difference. METHODS: A double-blind, randomized controlled trial was conducted between March 2021 and April 2023. Patients aged > 18 years undergoing ileostomy or colostomy surgery, in possession of a compatible smartphone were included. The intervention group received the full version of the app containing personalized and time guidance, peer support, and generic (non-personalized) stoma-related information. The control group received a restricted version with only generic information. Primary outcome was stoma quality of life. Secondary outcomes included psychological adaption, complications, re-admittance, reoperations, and length of hospital stay. RESULTS: The intervention version of the app was used by 96 patients and the control version by 112 patients. After correction for confounding, the intervention group reported a significant 3.1-point improvement in stoma-related quality of life one month postoperatively (p = 0.038). On secondary outcomes, no significant improvements could be retrieved of the intervention group. CONCLUSION: The Stoma App improves the quality of life of stoma patients. Peer support and personalized guidance are of significant importance in building self-efficacy. It is to be recommended to implement Stoma app-freely available software qualifying as a medical device-in standard stoma care pathways for the benefits of both patients and healthcare providers.

Symptoms and seeking supportive care and associations with quality of life after treatment for colon cancer: Results from the I CARE cohort study.

OBJECTIVE: Patients treated for colon cancer report many symptoms that affect quality of life (QoL). Survivorship care aims at QoL improvement. In this study, we assess associations between symptoms and seeking supportive care and lower QoL and QoL changes overtime during survivorship care. METHODS: A prospective cohort of colon cancer survivors. Questionnaires are administered at inclusion and 6 months later to evaluate symptoms, functioning and seeking supportive care including associations with QoL, using the EORTC QLQ-C30. RESULTS: The mean QoL score at the first questionnaire was 82 (scale 1-100), which improved over time. Pain, bowel symptoms and problems in physical, role, cognitive or social functioning are associated with lower QoL at inclusion but are not associated with QoL changes over time. Seeking support for lower bowel symptoms, physical functioning or fatigue is associated with lower QoL. After 6 months, seeking support for upper bowel symptoms or physical functioning is associated with a tendency towards less QoL improvement. CONCLUSION: QoL of colon cancer survivors improves over 6 months, but seeking support for specific symptoms barely contribute to this improvement. IMPLICATIONS: This study confirms the importance of addressing symptoms, problems related to functioning and seeking supportive care during survivorship care.

Hospital costs of colorectal cancer surgery for the oldest old: A Dutch population-based study.

Background Due to increasing healthcare costs, discussions regarding increased hospital costs when operating on high-risk patients is rising. Therefore, the aim of this study was to analyze if oldest-old colorectal cancer patients have a greater impact on hospital costs than their younger counterparts. METHODS: All colorectal cancer procedures performed in 29 Dutch hospitals between 2010 and 2012 and listed in the Dutch Surgical Colorectal Audit were analyzed. Oldest-old patients (≥85 years) were compared to patients <85 years. Ninety-day hospital costs were measured uniformly in all hospitals based on time-driven activity-based costs. RESULTS: Compared to <85-year-old patients (n = 9130), the oldest old (n = 783) had longer hospital stays (LOS) (11.3 vs. 13.2, P < 0.001), more severe complications (21.8% vs. 29.0%, P < 0.001), more failure to rescue (13.9% vs. 37.0%, P < 0.001) and higher mortality (3.0% vs. 10.7%, P < 0.001). Deceased oldest-old patients had significantly less LOS and less LOS ICU. Total hospital costs were 3% lower for oldest-old patients (€13,168) than for <85-year-old patients (€13,644, P < 0.001). In cases of severe complications or death, hospital costs for the oldest old were 25% and 31% lower than those of <85-year-old patients (both P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Although frequently assumed to be more expensive, operating on oldest-old patients with colorectal cancer does not increase hospital costs compared to younger patients. This was most likely due to faster deterioration or less aggressive treatment of oldest-old patients when (severe) complications occurred. J. Surg. Oncol. 2016;114:1009-1015. © 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Detection of colon cancer recurrences during follow-up care by general practitioners vs surgeons.

BACKGROUND: In the I CARE study, colon cancer patients were randomly assigned to receive follow-up care from either a general practitioner (GP) or a surgeon. Here, we address a secondary outcome, namely, detection of recurrences and effect on time to detection of transferring care from surgeon to GP. METHODS: Pattern, stage, and treatment of recurrences were described after 3 years. Time to event was defined as date of surgery, until date of recurrence or last follow-up, with death as competing event. Effects on time to recurrence and death were estimated as hazard ratios (HRs) using Cox regression. Restricted mean survival times were estimated. RESULTS: Of 303 patients, 141 were randomly assigned to the GP and 162 to the surgeon. Patients were male (67%) with a mean age of 68.0 (8.4) years. During follow-up, 46 recurrences were detected; 18 (13%) in the GP vs 28 (17%) in the surgeon group. Most recurrences were detected via abnormal follow-up tests (74%) and treated with curative intent (59%). Hazard ratio for recurrence was 0.75 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.41 to 1.36) in GP vs surgeon group. Patients in the GP group remained in the disease-free state slightly longer (2.76 vs 2.71 years). Of the patients, 38 died during follow-up; 15 (11%) in the GP vs 23 (14%) in the surgeon group. Of these, 21 (55%) deaths were related to colon cancer. There were no differences in overall deaths between the groups (HR = 0.76, 95% CI = 0.39 to 1.46). CONCLUSION: Follow-up provided by GPs vs surgeons leads to similar detection of recurrences. Also, no differences in mortality were found.

Cost-effectiveness of general practitioner- versus surgeon-led colon cancer survivorship care: an economic evaluation alongside a randomised controlled trial.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study is to assess cost-effectiveness of general practitioner (GP) versus surgeon-led colon cancer survivorship care from a societal perspective. METHODS: We performed an economic evaluation alongside the I CARE study, which included 303 cancer patients (stages I-III) who were randomised to survivorship care by a GP or surgeon. Questionnaires were administered at baseline, 3-, 6-, 12-, 24- and 36-months. Costs included healthcare costs (measured by iMTA MCQ) and lost productivity costs (SF-HLQ). Disease-specific quality of life (QoL) was measured using EORTC QLQ-C30 summary score and general QoL using EQ-5D-3L quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Missing data were imputed. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were calculated to relate costs to effects on QoL. Statistical uncertainty was estimated using bootstrapping. RESULTS: Total societal costs of GP-led care were significantly lower compared to surgeon-led care (mean difference of - €3895; 95% CI - €6113; - €1712). Lost productivity was the main contributor to the difference in societal costs (- €3305; 95% CI - €5028; - €1739). The difference in QLQ-C30 summary score over time between groups was 1.33 (95% CI - 0.049; 3.15). The ICER for QLQ-C30 was - 2073, indicating that GP-led care is dominant over surgeon-led care. The difference in QALYs was - 0.021 (95% CI - 0.083; 0.040) resulting in an ICER of 129,164. CONCLUSIONS: GP-led care is likely to be cost-effective for disease-specific QoL, but not for general QoL. IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS: With a growing number of cancer survivors, GP-led survivorship care could help to alleviate some of the burden on more expensive secondary healthcare services.

The ladies trial: laparoscopic peritoneal lavage or resection for purulent peritonitis and Hartmann's procedure or resection with primary anastomosis for purulent or faecal peritonitis in perforated diverticulitis (NTR2037).

BACKGROUND: Recently, excellent results are reported on laparoscopic lavage in patients with purulent perforated diverticulitis as an alternative for sigmoidectomy and ostomy.The objective of this study is to determine whether LaparOscopic LAvage and drainage is a safe and effective treatment for patients with purulent peritonitis (LOLA-arm) and to determine the optimal resectional strategy in patients with a purulent or faecal peritonitis (DIVA-arm: perforated DIVerticulitis: sigmoidresection with or without Anastomosis). METHODS/DESIGN: In this multicentre randomised trial all patients with perforated diverticulitis are included. Upon laparoscopy, patients with purulent peritonitis are treated with laparoscopic lavage and drainage, Hartmann's procedure or sigmoidectomy with primary anastomosis in a ratio of 2:1:1 (LOLA-arm). Patients with faecal peritonitis will be randomised 1:1 between Hartmann's procedure and resection with primary anastomosis (DIVA-arm). The primary combined endpoint of the LOLA-arm is major morbidity and mortality. A sample size of 132:66:66 patients will be able to detect a difference in the primary endpoint from 25% in resectional groups compared to 10% in the laparoscopic lavage group (two sided alpha = 5%, power = 90%). Endpoint of the DIVA-arm is stoma free survival one year after initial surgery. In this arm 212 patients are needed to significantly demonstrate a difference of 30% (log rank test two sided alpha = 5% and power = 90%) in favour of the patients with resection with primary anastomosis. Secondary endpoints for both arms are the number of days alive and outside the hospital, health related quality of life, health care utilisation and associated costs. DISCUSSION: The Ladies trial is a nationwide multicentre randomised trial on perforated diverticulitis that will provide evidence on the merits of laparoscopic lavage and drainage for purulent generalised peritonitis and on the optimal resectional strategy for both purulent and faecal generalised peritonitis. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Nederlands Trial Register NTR2037.

Hartmann's procedure versus sigmoidectomy with primary anastomosis for perforated diverticulitis with purulent or faecal peritonitis (LADIES): a multicentre, parallel-group, randomised, open-label, superiority trial.

BACKGROUND: Previous studies have suggested that sigmoidectomy with primary anastomosis is superior to Hartmann's procedure. The likelihood of stoma reversal after primary anastomosis has been reported to be higher and reversal seems to be associated with lower morbidity and mortality. Although promising, results from these previous studies remain uncertain because of potential selection bias. Therefore, this study aimed to assess outcomes after Hartmann's procedure versus sigmoidectomy with primary anastomosis, with or without defunctioning ileostomy, for perforated diverticulitis with purulent or faecal peritonitis (Hinchey III or IV disease) in a randomised trial. METHODS: A multicentre, randomised, open-label, superiority trial was done in eight academic hospitals and 34 teaching hospitals in Belgium, Italy, and the Netherlands. Patients aged between 18 and 85 years who presented with clinical signs of general peritonitis and suspected perforated diverticulitis were eligible for inclusion if plain abdominal radiography or CT scan showed diffuse free air or fluid. Patients with Hinchey I or II diverticulitis were not eligible for inclusion. Patients were allocated (1:1) to Hartmann's procedure or sigmoidectomy with primary anastomosis, with or without defunctioning ileostomy. Patients were enrolled by the surgeon or surgical resident involved, and secure online randomisation software was used in the operating room or by the trial coordinator on the phone. Random and concealed block sizes of two, four, or six were used, and randomisation was stratified by age (<60 and ≥60 years). The primary endpoint was 12-month stoma-free survival. Patients were analysed according to a modified intention-to-treat principle. The trial is registered with the Netherlands Trial Register, number NTR2037, and ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01317485. FINDINGS: Between July 1, 2010, and Feb 22, 2013, and June 9, 2013, and trial termination on June 3, 2016, 133 patients (93 with Hinchey III disease and 40 with Hinchey IV disease) were randomly assigned to Hartmann's procedure (68 patients) or primary anastomosis (65 patients). Two patients in the Hartmann's group were excluded, as was one in the primary anastomosis group; the modified intention-to-treat population therefore consisted of 66 patients in the Hartmann's procedure group (46 with Hinchey III disease, 20 with Hinchey IV disease) and 64 in the primary anastomosis group (46 with Hinchey III disease, 18 with Hinchey IV disease). In 17 (27%) of 64 patients assigned to primary anastomosis, no stoma was constructed. 12-month stoma-free survival was significantly better for patients undergoing primary anastomosis compared with Hartmann's procedure (94·6% [95% CI 88·7-100] vs 71·7% [95% CI 60·1-83·3], hazard ratio 2·79 [95% CI 1·86-4·18]; log-rank p<0·0001). There were no significant differences in short-term morbidity and mortality after the index procedure for Hartmann's procedure compared with primary anastomosis (morbidity: 29 [44%] of 66 patients vs 25 [39%] of 64, p=0·60; mortality: two [3%] vs four [6%], p=0·44). INTERPRETATION: In haemodynamically stable, immunocompetent patients younger than 85 years, primary anastomosis is preferable to Hartmann's procedure as a treatment for perforated diverticulitis (Hinchey III or Hinchey IV disease). FUNDING: Netherlands Organisation for Health Research and Development.

Improving care after colon cancer treatment in The Netherlands, personalised care to enhance quality of life (I CARE study): study protocol for a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: It is expected that in 2020 more than 17,000 cases of colorectal cancer will be diagnosed in The Netherlands. To date, patients are included in a surgeon-led follow-up programme whose main focus is recurrence detection. However, patients often experience multiple physical and psychosocial problems. Currently, these problems are not always encountered. More care by a generalist is suggested as a solution. Furthermore, patients prefer to undergo rehabilitation in their own environment and to be more involved in their own health care. eHealth applications might enhance this. Oncokompas(2.0) is an online self-management application which facilitates access to supportive care. This study aims to evaluate primary care follow-up and aftercare in comparison with secondary care follow-up and aftercare for patients with colon cancer. Second, the added value of Oncokompas(2.0) to care will be assessed. METHODS/DESIGN: This is a multi-centre 2 × 2 factorial randomised controlled trial with a calculated sample size of 300 patients. Patients with stage I, II, or III colon carcinoma are eligible. Patients will be randomly assigned in four groups: (1) usual follow-up visits and aftercare provided in secondary care, (2) usual follow-up visits and aftercare provided in secondary care with additional use of Oncokompas(2.0), (3) follow-up and aftercare in primary care, and (4) follow-up and aftercare in primary care with additional use of Oncokompas(2.0). The primary outcome is quality of life. Secondary outcomes include physical outcomes, psychosocial outcomes, number of investigations, referrals and related communication between secondary and primary care, (time of) recurrence detection and protocol adherence, attention to preventive care, self-management of patients, patient satisfaction, and preference of care at the end of the trial. Data collection will be done by questionnaires and extractions from electronic medical records. DISCUSSION: The results of this study will provide evidence, which has been scarce to date, on prominent general practitioner involvement in care for colon cancer patients after initial treatment. Also, it evaluates the efficacy of an eHealth application to enhance patient empowerment. DUTCH TRIAL REGISTER: NTR4860 (registered on 2 October 2014).