Evolution in Laparoscopic Gastrectomy From a Randomized Controlled Trial Through National Clinical Practice.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the influence of the LOGICA RCT (randomized controlled trial) upon the practice and outcomes of laparoscopic gastrectomy within the Netherlands. BACKGROUND: Following RCTs the dissemination of complex interventions has been poorly studied. The LOGICA RCT included 10 Dutch centers and compared laparoscopic to open gastrectomy. METHODS: Data were obtained from the Dutch Upper Gastrointestinal Cancer Audit (DUCA) on all gastrectomies performed in the Netherlands (2012-2021), and the LOGICA RCT from 2015 to 2018. Multilevel multivariable logistic regression analyses were performed to assess the effect of laparoscopic versus open gastrectomy upon clinical outcomes before, during, and after the LOGICA RCT. RESULTS: Two hundred eleven patients from the LOGICA RCT (105 open vs 106 laparoscopic) and 4131 patients from the DUCA data set (1884 open vs 2247 laparoscopic) were included. In 2012, laparoscopic gastrectomy was performed in 6% of patients, increasing to 82% in 2021. No significant effect of laparoscopic gastrectomy on postoperative clinical outcomes was observed within the LOGICA RCT. Nationally within DUCA, a shift toward a beneficial effect of laparoscopic gastrectomy upon complications was observed, reaching a significant reduction in overall [adjusted odds ratio (aOR):0.62; 95% CI: 0.46-0.82], severe (aOR: 0.64; 95% CI: 0.46-0.90) and cardiac complications (aOR: 0.51; 95% CI: 0.30-0.89) after the LOGICA trial. CONCLUSIONS: The wider benefits of the LOGICA trial included the safe dissemination of laparoscopic gastrectomy across the Netherlands. The robust surgical quality assurance program in the design of the LOGICA RCT was crucial to facilitate the national dissemination of the technique following the trial and reducing potential patient harm during surgeons learning curve.

Outcomes after gastrectomy according to the Gastrectomy Complications Consensus Group (GCCG) in the Dutch Upper GI Cancer Audit (DUCA).

BACKGROUND: In 2019, the Gastrectomy Complications Consensus Group (GCCG) published a standardized set of complications aiming toward uniform reporting of post-gastrectomy complications. This study aimed to report outcomes after gastrectomy in the Netherlands according to GCCG definitions and compare them to previously reported national results and the European database reported by the GCCG. METHODS: This nationwide, population-based cohort study included all patients undergoing gastrectomy for gastric cancer registered in the DUCA in 2020-2021. Postoperative morbidity and 30-day/in-hospital mortality were analyzed according to the GCCG definitions. For all patients, baseline characteristics and outcomes were compared with the GCCG cohort consisting of 27 European expert centers (GASTRODATA; 2017-2018). RESULTS: In 2020-2021, 782 patients underwent gastrectomy in the Netherlands. Variation was seen in baseline characteristics between the Dutch and the GCCG cohort (N = 1349), most notably in minimally invasive surgery (80.6% vs 19.6%, p < 0.001). In the Netherlands, 223 (28.5%) patients developed a total of 407 complications, the most frequent being non-surgical infections (28.5%) and anastomotic leakage (13.4%). The overall complication and 30-day mortality rates were similar between the Dutch and GCCG cohort (28.5% vs 29.8%, p = 0.563; 3.7% vs 3.6%, p = 0.953). Higher surgical and endoscopic/radiologic reintervention rates were observed in the Netherlands compared to the GCCG cohort (10.7% vs 7.8%, p = 0.025; 10.9% vs 2.9%, p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Reporting outcomes according to the standardized GCCG definitions allows for international benchmarking. Postoperative outcomes were comparable between Dutch and GCCG cohorts, but both exceed the international benchmark for expert gastrectomy care, highlighting targets for national and international quality improvement.

Western European Variation in the Organization of Esophageal Cancer Surgical Care.

Reasons for structural and outcome differences in esophageal cancer surgery in Western Europe remain unclear. This questionnaire study aimed to identify differences in the organization of esophageal cancer surgical care in Western Europe. A cross-sectional international questionnaire study was conducted among upper gastrointestinal (GI) surgeons from Western Europe. One surgeon per country was selected based on scientific output and active membership in the European Society for Diseases of the Esophagus or (inter)national upper GI committee. The questionnaire consisted of 51 structured questions on the structural organization of esophageal cancer surgery, surgical training, and clinical audit processes. Between October 2021 and October 2022, 16 surgeons from 16 European countries participated in this study. In 5 countries (31%), a volume threshold was present ranging from 10 to 26 annual esophagectomies, in 7 (44%) care was centralized in designated centers, and in 4 (25%) no centralizing regulations were present. The number of centers performing esophageal cancer surgery per country differed from 4 to 400, representing 0.5-4.9 centers per million inhabitants. In 4 countries (25%), esophageal cancer surgery was part of general surgical training and 8 (50%) reported the availability of upper GI surgery fellowships. A national audit for upper GI surgery was present in 8 (50%) countries. If available, all countries use the audit to monitor the quality of care. Substantial differences exist in the organization and centralization of esophageal cancer surgical care in Western Europe. The exchange of experience in the organizational aspects of care could further improve the results of esophageal cancer surgical care in Europe.

Hospital Variation in Feeding Jejunostomy Policy for Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy: A Nationwide Cohort Study.

The purpose of this study was to investigate hospital variation in the placement, surgical techniques, and safety of feeding jejunostomies (FJ) during minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) in the Netherlands. This nationwide cohort study analyzed patients registered in the Dutch Upper Gastrointestinal Cancer Audit (DUCA) that underwent MIE for cancer. Hospital variation in FJ placement rates were investigated using case-mix corrected funnel plots. Short-term outcomes were compared between patients with and without FJ using multilevel multivariable logistic regression analysis. The incidence of FJ-related complications was described and compared between hospitals performing routine and non-routine placement (≥90%−<90% of patients). Between 2018−2020, an FJ was placed in 1481/1811 (81.8%) patients. Rates ranged from 11−100% among hospitals. More patients were discharged within 10 days (median hospital stay) without FJ compared to patients with FJ (64.5% vs. 50.4%; OR: 0.62, 95% CI: 0.42−0.90). FJ-related complications occurred in 45 (3%) patients, of whom 23 (1.6%) experienced severe complications (≥Clavien−Dindo IIIa). The FJ-related complication rate was 13.7% in hospitals not routinely placing FJs vs. 1.7% in hospitals performing routine FJ placement (p < 0.001). Significant hospital variation in the use of FJs after MIE exists in the Netherlands. No effect of FJs on complications was observed. FJs can be placed safely, with lower FJ-related complication rates, in centers performing routine placement.

The (ir)relevance of the abandoned criterion II for the diagnosis of serrated polyposis syndrome: a retrospective cohort study.

The World Health Organization (WHO) recently updated the diagnostic criteria for serrated polyposis syndrome (SPS). One of the three previous diagnostic criteria (criterion II2010) is now abandoned: ≥ 1 serrated polyp (SP) proximal to the sigmoid in a first-degree relative (FDR) of a patient with SPS. Individuals fulfilling this abandoned criterion now receive the same surveillance recommendations as all FDRs of patients with SPS. We aimed to compare the incidence of advanced neoplasia (AN) in FDRs with vs. without fulfillment of the abandoned criterion II2010. We retrospectively recruited FDRs of patients with SPS who underwent a colonoscopy, and stratified them according to fulfilment of criterion II2010 at baseline. Our primary and secondary outcomes were AN incidence during surveillance and at baseline, respectively. We included 224 FDRs of patients with SPS, of whom 36 (16%) fulfilled criterion II2010 at baseline. One hundred and five underwent surveillance after baseline. Criterion II2010-positive FDRs were at increased risk of AN, both during surveillance (hazard ratio 8.94, 95% CI 2.15-37.1, p = .003) as well as at baseline (adjusted odds-ratio 9.30, 95% CI 3.7-23.3, p < .001). FDRs of patients with SPS that underwent colonoscopy and fulfilled the abandoned criterion II2010 for SPS diagnosis were at increased risk of AN at baseline and during surveillance in this small, retrospective cohort study. Our results should be interpreted with caution but suggest that adherence to surveillance recommendations for all FDRs of patients with SPS is important, especially for those that would have fulfilled the now abandoned criterion II2010.