A nationwide assessment of hepatocellular adenoma resection: Indications and pathological discordance.

Hepatocellular adenomas (HCAs) are benign liver tumors associated with bleeding or malignant transformation. Data on the indication for surgery are scarce. We analyzed indications and outcome of patients operated for HCAs < 50 mm compared to HCAs ≥ 50 mm. Changes in final postoperative diagnosis were assessed. We performed a retrospective study that included patients who underwent resection for (suspected) HCAs in the Netherlands from 2014 to 2019. Indication for resection was analyzed and stratified for small (<50 mm) and large (≥50 mm) tumors. Logistic regression analysis was performed on factors influencing change in tumor diagnosis. Out of 222 patients who underwent surgery, 44 (20%) patients had a tumor <50 mm. Median age was 46 (interquartile range [IQR], 33-56) years in patients with small tumors and 37 (IQR, 31-46) years in patients with large tumors ( p  = 0.016). Patients with small tumors were more frequently men (21% vs. 5%, p  = 0.002). Main indications for resection in patients with small tumors were suspicion of (pre)malignancy (55%), (previous) bleeding (14%), and male sex (11%). Patients with large tumors received operations because of tumor size >50 mm (52%), suspicion of (pre)malignancy (28%), and (previous) bleeding (5.1%). No difference was observed in HCA-subtype distribution between small and large tumors. Ninety-six (43%) patients had a postoperative change in diagnosis. Independent risk factors for change in diagnosis were tumor size <50 mm (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 3.4; p  < 0.01), male sex (aOR, 3.7; p  = 0.03), and lack of hepatobiliary contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (CE-MRI) (aOR, 1.8; p  = 0.04). Resection for small (suspected) HCAs was mainly indicated by suspicion of (pre)malignancy, whereas for large (suspected) HCAs, tumor size was the most prevalent indication. Male sex, tumor size <50 mm, and lack of hepatobiliary CE-MRI were independent risk factors for postoperative change in tumor diagnosis.

Defining Textbook Outcome in liver surgery and assessment of hospital variation: A nationwide population-based study.

INTRODUCTION: Textbook outcome (TO) is a composite outcome measure covering the surgical care process in a single outcome measure. TO has an advantage over single outcome parameters with low event rates, which have less discriminating impact to detect differences between hospitals. This study aimed to assess factors associated with TO, and evaluate hospital and network variation after case-mix correction in TO rates for liver surgery. METHODS: This was a population-based retrospective study of all patients who underwent liver resection for malignancy in the Netherlands in 2019 and 2020. TO was defined as absence of severe postoperative complications, mortality, prolonged length of hospital stay, and readmission, and obtaining adequate resection margins. Multivariable logistic regression was used for case-mix adjustment. RESULTS: 2376 patients were included. TO was accomplished in 1380 (80%) patients with colorectal liver metastases, in 192 (76%) patients with other liver metastases, in 183 (74%) patients with hepatocellular carcinoma and 86 (51%) patients with biliary cancers. Factors associated with lower TO rates for CRLM included ASA score ≥3 (aOR 0.70, CI 0.51-0.95 p = 0.02), extrahepatic disease (aOR 0.64, CI 0.44-0.95, p = 0.02), tumour size >55 mm on preoperative imaging (aOR 0.56, CI 0.34-0.94, p = 0.02), Charlson Comorbidity Index ≥2 (aOR 0.73, CI 0.54-0.98, p = 0.04), and major liver resection (aOR 0.50, CI 0.36-0.69, p < 0.001). After case-mix correction, no significant hospital or oncological network variation was observed. CONCLUSION: TO differs between indications for liver resection and can be used to assess between hospital and network differences.

Nationwide oncological networks for resection of colorectal liver metastases in the Netherlands: Differences and postoperative outcomes.

INTRODUCTION: Widespread differences in patient demographics and disease burden between hospitals for resection of colorectal liver metastases (CRLM) have been described. In the Netherlands, networks consisting of at least one tertiary referral centre and several regional hospitals have been established to optimize treatment and outcomes. The aim of this study was to assess variation in case-mix, and outcomes between these networks. METHODS: This was a population-based study including all patients who underwent CRLM resection in the Netherlands between 2014 and 2019. Variation in case-mix and outcomes between seven networks covering the whole country was evaluated. Differences in case-mix, expected 30-day major morbidity (Clavien-Dindo ≥3a) and 30-day mortality between networks were assessed. RESULTS: In total 5383 patients were included. Thirty-day major morbidity was 5.7% and 30-day mortality was 1.5%. Significant differences between networks were observed for Charlson Comorbidity Index, ASA 3+, previous liver resection, liver disease, preoperative MRI, preoperative chemotherapy, ≥3 CRLM, diameter of largest CRLM ≥55 mm, major resection, combined resection and ablation, rectal primary tumour, bilobar and extrahepatic disease. Uncorrected 30-day major morbidity ranged between 3.3% and 13.1% for hospitals, 30-day mortality ranged between 0.0% and 4.5%. Uncorrected 30-day major morbidity ranged between 4.4% and 6.0% for networks, 30-day mortality ranged between 0.0% and 2.5%. No negative outliers were observed after case-mix correction. CONCLUSION: Variation in case-mix and outcomes are considerably smaller on a network level as compared to a hospital level. Therefore, auditing is more meaningful at a network level and collaboration of hospitals within networks should be pursued.

The Costs of Complications and Unplanned Readmissions after Pancreatoduodenectomy for Pancreatic and Periampullary Tumors: Results from a Single Academic Center.

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES: Complications after pancreatoduodenectomy (PD) lead to unplanned readmissions (UR), with a two- to threefold increase in admission costs. In this study, we aimed to create an understanding of the costs of complications and UR in this patient group. Furthermore, we aimed to generate a detailed cost overview that can be used to build a theoretical model to calculate the cost efficacy for prehabilitation. METHODS: A retrospective cohort analysis was performed using the Dutch Pancreatic Cancer Audit (DPCA) database of patients who underwent a PD at our institute between 2013 and 2017. The total costs of the index hospital admission and UR related to the PD were collected. RESULTS: Of the 160 patients; 35 patients (22%) had an uncomplicated course; 87 patients (54%) had minor complications, and 38 patients (24%) had severe complications. Median costs for an uncomplicated course were EUR 25.682, and for a complicated course, EUR 32.958 (p = 0.001). The median costs for minor complications were EUR 30.316, and for major complications, EUR 42.664 (p = 0.001). Costs were related to the Comprehensive Complication Index (CCI). The median costs of patients with one or more UR were EUR 41.199. CONCLUSIONS: Complications after PD led to a EUR 4.634-EUR 16.982 (18-66%) increase in hospital costs. A UR led to a cost increase of EUR 12.567 (44%). Since hospital costs are directly related to the CCI, reduction in complications will lead to cost-effectiveness.

A prospective cohort study evaluating screening and assessment of six modifiable risk factors in HPB cancer patients and compliance to recommended prehabilitation interventions.

INTRODUCTION: Despite improvements in perioperative care, major abdominal surgery continues to be associated with significant perioperative morbidity. Accurate preoperative risk stratification and optimisation (prehabilitation) are necessary to reduce perioperative morbidity. This study evaluated the screening and assessment of modifiable risk factors amendable for prehabilitation interventions and measured the patient compliance rate with recommended interventions. METHOD: Between May 2019 and January 2020, patients referred to our hospital for HPB surgery were screened and assessed on six modifiable preoperative risk factors. The risk factors and screening tools used, with cutoff values, included (i) low physical fitness (a 6-min walk test < 82% of patient's calculated norm and/or patient's activity level not meeting the global recommendations on physical activity for health). Patients who were unfit based on the screening were assessed with a cardiopulmonary exercise test (anaerobic threshold ≤ 11 mL/kg/min); (ii) malnutrition (patient-generated subjective global assessment ≥ 4); (iii) iron-deficiency anaemia (haemoglobin < 12 g/dL for women, < 13 g/dL for men and transferrin saturation ≤ 20%); (iv) frailty (Groningen frailty indicator/Robinson frailty score ≥ 4); (v) substance use (smoking and alcohol use of > 5 units per week) and (vi) low psychological resilience (Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale ≥ 8). Patients had a consultation with the surgeon on the same day as their screening. High-risk patients were referred for necessary interventions. RESULTS: One hundred consecutive patients were screened at our prehabilitation outpatient clinic. The prevalence of high-risk patients per risk factor was 64% for low physical fitness, 42% for malnutrition, 32% for anaemia (in 47% due to iron deficiency), 22% for frailty, 12% for smoking, 18% for alcohol use and 21% for low psychological resilience. Of the 77 patients who were eventually scheduled for surgery, 53 (68.8%) needed at least one intervention, of whom 28 (52.8%) complied with 100% of the necessary interventions. The median (IQR) number of interventions needed in the 77 patients was 1.0 (0-2). CONCLUSION: It is feasible to screen and assess all patients referred for HPB cancer surgery for six modifiable risk factors. Most of the patients had at least one risk factor that could be optimised. However, compliance with the suggested interventions remains challenging.