Impact of 18FFDG-PET/CT and Laparoscopy in Staging of Locally Advanced Gastric Cancer: A Cost Analysis in the Prospective Multicenter PLASTIC-Study.

BACKGROUND: Unnecessary D2-gastrectomy and associated costs can be prevented after detecting non-curable gastric cancer, but impact of staging on treatment costs is unclear. This study determined the cost impact of 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography (18FFDG-PET/CT) and staging laparoscopy (SL) in gastric cancer staging. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this cost analysis, four staging strategies were modeled in a decision tree: (1) 18FFDG-PET/CT first, then SL, (2) SL only, (3) 18FFDG-PET/CT only, and (4) neither SL nor 18FFDG-PET/CT. Costs were assessed on the basis of the prospective PLASTIC-study, which evaluated adding 18FFDG-PET/CT and SL to staging advanced gastric cancer (cT3-4 and/or cN+) in 18 Dutch hospitals. The Dutch Healthcare Authority provided 18FFDG-PET/CT unit costs. SL unit costs were calculated bottom-up. Gastrectomy-associated costs were collected with hospital claim data until 30 days postoperatively. Uncertainty was assessed in a probabilistic sensitivity analysis (1000 iterations). RESULTS: 18FFDG-PET/CT costs were €1104 including biopsy/cytology. Bottom-up calculations totaled €1537 per SL. D2-gastrectomy costs were €19,308. Total costs per patient were €18,137 for strategy 1, €17,079 for strategy 2, and €19,805 for strategy 3. If all patients undergo gastrectomy, total costs were €18,959 per patient (strategy 4). Performing SL only reduced costs by €1880 per patient. Adding 18FFDG-PET/CT to SL increased costs by €1058 per patient; IQR €870-1253 in the sensitivity analysis. CONCLUSIONS: For advanced gastric cancer, performing SL resulted in substantial cost savings by reducing unnecessary gastrectomies. In contrast, routine 18FFDG-PET/CT increased costs without substantially reducing unnecessary gastrectomies, and is not recommended due to limited impact with major costs. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT03208621. This trial was registered prospectively on 30-06-2017.

A Video-Based Procedure-Specific Competency Assessment Tool for Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy.

Importance: Minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) is a complex procedure with substantial learning curves. In other complex minimally invasive procedures, suboptimal surgical performance has convincingly been associated with less favorable patient outcomes as assessed by peer review of the surgical procedure. Objective: To develop and validate a procedure-specific competency assessment tool (CAT) for MIE. Design, Setting, and Participants: In this international quality improvement study, a procedure-specific MIE-CAT was developed and validated. The MIE-CAT contains 8 procedural phases, and 4 quality components per phase are scored with a Likert scale ranging from 1 to 4. For evaluation of the MIE-CAT, intraoperative MIE videos performed by a single surgical team in the Esophageal Center East Netherlands were peer reviewed by 18 independent international MIE experts (with more than 120 MIEs performed). Each video was assessed by 2 or 3 blinded experts to evaluate feasibility, content validity, reliability, and construct validity. MIE-CAT version 2 was composed with refined content aimed at improving interrater reliability. A total of 32 full-length MIE videos from patients who underwent MIE between 2011 and 2020 were analyzed. Data were analyzed from January 2021 to January 2023. Exposure: Performance assessment of transthoracic MIE with an intrathoracic anastomosis. Main Outcomes and Measures: Feasibility, content validity, interrater and intrarater reliability, and construct validity, including correlations with both experience of the surgical team and clinical parameters, of the developed MIE-CAT. Results: Experts found the MIE-CAT easy to understand and easy to use to grade surgical performance. The MIE-CAT demonstrated good intrarater reliability (range of intraclass correlation coefficients [ICCs], 0.807 [95% CI, 0.656 to 0.892] for quality component score to 0.898 [95% CI, 0.846 to 0.932] for phase score). Interrater reliability was moderate (range of ICCs, 0.536 [95% CI, -0.220 to 0.994] for total MIE-CAT score to 0.705 [95% CI, 0.473 to 0.846] for quality component score), and most discrepancies originated in the lymphadenectomy phases. Hypothesis testing for construct validity showed more than 75% of hypotheses correct: MIE-CAT performance scores correlated with experience of the surgical team (r = 0.288 to 0.622), blood loss (r = -0.034 to -0.545), operative time (r = -0.309 to -0.611), intraoperative complications (r = -0.052 to -0.319), and severe postoperative complications (r = -0.207 to -0.395). MIE-CAT version 2 increased usability. Interrater reliability improved but remained moderate (range of ICCs, 0.666 to 0.743), and most discrepancies between raters remained in the lymphadenectomy phases. Conclusions and Relevance: The MIE-CAT was developed and its feasibility, content validity, reliability, and construct validity were demonstrated. By providing insight into surgical performance of MIE, the MIE-CAT might be used for clinical, training, and research purposes.

Crowd-sourced and expert video assessment in minimally invasive esophagectomy.

BACKGROUND: Video-based assessment by experts may structurally measure surgical performance using procedure-specific competency assessment tools (CATs). A CAT for minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE-CAT) was developed and validated previously. However, surgeon's time is scarce and video assessment is time-consuming and labor intensive. This study investigated non-procedure-specific assessment of MIE video clips by MIE experts and crowdsourcing, collective surgical performance evaluation by anonymous and untrained laypeople, to assist procedure-specific expert review. METHODS: Two surgical performance scoring frameworks were used to assess eight MIE videos. First, global performance was assessed with the non-procedure-specific Global Operative Assessment of Laparoscopic Skills (GOALS) of 64 procedural phase-based video clips < 10 min. Each clip was assessed by two MIE experts and > 30 crowd workers. Second, the same experts assessed procedure-specific performance with the MIE-CAT of the corresponding full-length video. Reliability and convergent validity of GOALS for MIE were investigated using hypothesis testing with correlations (experience, blood loss, operative time, and MIE-CAT). RESULTS: Less than 75% of hypothesized correlations between GOALS scores and experience of the surgical team (r < 0.3), blood loss (r = - 0.82 to 0.02), operative time (r = - 0.42 to 0.07), and the MIE-CAT scores (r = - 0.04 to 0.76) were met for both crowd workers and experts. Interestingly, experts' GOALS and MIE-CAT scores correlated strongly (r = 0.40 to 0.79), while crowd workers' GOALS and experts' MIE-CAT scores correlations were weak (r = - 0.04 to 0.49). Expert and crowd worker GOALS scores correlated poorly (ICC ≤ 0.42). CONCLUSION: GOALS assessments by crowd workers lacked convergent validity and showed poor reliability. It is likely that MIE is technically too difficult to assess for laypeople. Convergent validity of GOALS assessments by experts could also not be established. GOALS might not be comprehensive enough to assess detailed MIE performance. However, expert's GOALS and MIE-CAT scores strongly correlated indicating video clip (instead of full-length video) assessments could be useful to shorten assessment time.

Cost-effectiveness of Laparoscopic vs Open Gastrectomy for Gastric Cancer: An Economic Evaluation Alongside a Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Laparoscopic gastrectomy is rapidly being adopted worldwide as an alternative to open gastrectomy to treat gastric cancer. However, laparoscopic gastrectomy might be more expensive as a result of longer operating times and more expensive surgical materials. To date, the cost-effectiveness of both procedures has not been prospectively evaluated in a randomized clinical trial. Objective: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of laparoscopic compared with open gastrectomy. Design, Setting, and Participants: In this multicenter randomized clinical trial of patients undergoing total or distal gastrectomy in 10 Dutch tertiary referral centers, cost-effectiveness data were collected alongside a multicenter randomized clinical trial on laparoscopic vs open gastrectomy for resectable gastric adenocarcinoma (cT1-4aN0-3bM0). A modified societal perspective and 1-year time horizon were used. Costs were calculated on the individual patient level by using hospital registry data and medical consumption and productivity loss questionnaires. The unit costs of laparoscopic and open gastrectomy were calculated bottom-up. Quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were calculated with the EuroQol 5-dimension questionnaire, in which a value of 0 indicates death and 1 indicates perfect health. Missing questionnaire data were imputed with multiple imputation. Bootstrapping was performed to estimate the uncertainty surrounding the cost-effectiveness. The study was conducted from March 17, 2015, to August 20, 2018. Data analyses were performed between September 1, 2020, and November 17, 2021. Interventions: Laparoscopic vs open gastrectomy. Main Outcomes and Measures: Evaluations in this cost-effectiveness analysis included total costs and QALYs. Results: Between 2015 and 2018, 227 patients were included. Mean (SD) age was 67.5 (11.7) years, and 140 were male (61.7%). Unit costs for initial surgery were calculated to be €8124 (US $8087) for laparoscopic total gastrectomy, €7353 (US $7320) for laparoscopic distal gastrectomy, €6584 (US $6554) for open total gastrectomy, and €5893 (US $5866) for open distal gastrectomy. Mean total costs after 1-year follow-up were €26 084 (US $25 965) in the laparoscopic group and €25 332 (US $25 216) in the open group (difference, €752 [US $749; 3.0%]). Mean (SD) QALY contributions during 1 year were 0.665 (0.298) in the laparoscopic group and 0.686 (0.288) in the open group (difference, -0.021). Bootstrapping showed that these differences between treatment groups were relatively small compared with the uncertainty of the analysis. Conclusions and Relevance: Although the laparoscopic gastrectomy itself was more expensive, after 1-year follow-up, results suggest that differences in both total costs and effectiveness were limited between laparoscopic and open gastrectomy. These results support centers' choosing, based on their own preference, whether to (de)implement laparoscopic gastrectomy as an alternative to open gastrectomy.

Effect of direct oral feeding following minimally invasive esophagectomy on costs and quality of life.

AIMS: Following (minimally invasive) esophagectomy, patients often rely on tube feeding, since oral intake is often delayed. Consequently, additional support by a dietician and home care is needed until oral intake is commenced. In this study, the effects of direct start of oral feeding compared with tube feeding following an esophagectomy was evaluated on treatment costs and health-related quality of life (QoL). METHODS: Patients undergoing a minimally invasive esophagectomy were randomized in the NUTRIENT II study between controls (nil-per-mouth during 5 days and subsequent tube feeding) and a group in whom oral feeding was started directly postoperatively. Total hospital costs (including readmission and outpatient costs) and home care data for a period of 6 months after surgery were analyzed. QoL (measured using EORTC-QLQ-C30 and EORTC OG-25) was assessed preoperatively and 6 weeks, 12 weeks, and 6 months postoperatively. RESULTS: A total 132 patients were included (n = 65 direct oral feeding group and n = 67 control group). Mean patient hospital costs were €26,014 in the intervention group over a 6-month period compared to €26,989 in the control group (p = .825). Furthermore, people with direct oral feeding required significantly less home care assistance; i.e. 23 (48.9%) intervention patients versus 37 (77.1%) control patients (p = .004). Also, QoL in patients with direct oral feeding progressed more quickly when compared to the control group. LIMITATIONS: Hospital costs were derived from a single hospital unit whereas costs from all the participating units may be a better reflection of the cost deviation. Availability of homecare data was limited, leading to difficulty in detecting differences in costs. CONCLUSION: This study suggests that direct oral feeding leads to similar total costs and a significantly reduced need for home care assistance. Furthermore, QoL in intervention group increased more quickly when compared to the control group.

The clinical and economical impact of postoperative ileus in patients undergoing colorectal surgery.

BACKGROUND: Colorectal surgery is associated with postoperative ileus (POI). Despite its widespread manifestation, the influence of POI on recovery, quality of life (QoL), and costs is largely unknown. The aim of this study was to assess whether the inflammatory processes found in experimental studies are also evident in patients undergoing colorectal surgery. In addition, the impact of POI on short and long-term QoL and costs was investigated. METHODS: We analyzed the outcomes of the SANICS-II trial, including prospective evaluation of inflammatory parameters in blood samples, costs from a societal perspective and QoL, using validated questionnaires. Outcomes were compared between patients with and without POI, and in particular patients with POI as unique complication. KEY RESULTS: A total of 265 patients (POI, n = 66 vs non-POI, n = 199) were included and 38/66 had POI as only complication. CRP levels were significantly increased on postoperative day (POD) 1, 2, 3, and 4 in patients with POI. Furthermore, plasma levels of cytokines IL-6, Il-8 and IL-10 were significantly increased the first 2 days after resection. Patients with POI had a higher overall complication rate and a reduced QoL 3 months postoperatively, even in the only POI group. Moreover, mean societal cost per patient with POI was 38%-47% higher at 3 months postoperatively. CONCLUSIONS & INFERENCES: Supporting findings from experimental studies, inflammatory parameters were increased in patients with only POI and comparable with all patients with POI. These results demonstrate the impact and large contribution of POI in postoperative inflammation, costs and QoL in patients undergoing colorectal surgery.

An economic evaluation of perioperative enteral nutrition in patients undergoing colorectal surgery (SANICS II study).

AIMS: The objective of this (trial based) economic evaluation was to assess, from a societal perspective, the cost-effectiveness of perioperative enteral nutrition compared with standard care in patients undergoing colorectal surgery. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Alongside the SANICS II randomized controlled trial, global quality-of-life, utilities (measured by EQ-5D-5L), healthcare costs, production losses, and patient and family costs were assessed at baseline, 3 months, and 6 months. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) (i.e. cost per increased global quality-of-life score or quality-adjusted life year [QALY] gained) and cost effectiveness acceptability curves were visualized. RESULTS: In total, 265 patients were included in the original trial (n = 132 in the perioperative enteral nutrition group and n = 133 in the standard care group). At 6 months, global quality-of-life (83 vs 83, p = .357) did not differ significantly between the groups. The mean total societal costs for the intervention and standard care groups were €14,673 and €11,974, respectively, but did not reach statistical significance (p = .109). The intervention resulted in an ICER of -€6,276 per point increase in the global quality of life score. The gain in QALY was marginal (0.003), with an additional cost of €2,941, and the ICUR (Incremental cost utility ratio) was estimated at €980,333. LIMITATIONS: The cost elements for all the participating centers reflect the reference prices from the Netherlands. Patient-reported questionnaires may have resulted in recall bias. Sample size was limited by exclusion of patients who did not complete questionnaires for at least at two time points. A power analysis based on costs and health-related quality-of-life (HRQoL) was not performed. The economic impact could not be analyzed at 1 month post-operatively where the effects could potentially be higher. CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests that perioperative nutrition is not beneficial for the patients in terms of quality-of-life and is not cost-effective.

Two versus five days of antibiotics after appendectomy for complex acute appendicitis (APPIC): study protocol for a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Acute appendicitis is one of the most common indications for emergency surgery. In patients with a complex appendicitis, prolonged antibiotic prophylaxis is recommended after appendectomy. There is no consensus regarding the optimum duration of antibiotics. Guidelines propose 3 to 7 days of treatment, but shorter courses may be as effective in the prevention of infectious complications. At the same time, the global issue of increasing antimicrobial resistance urges for optimization of antibiotic strategies. The aim of this study is to determine whether a short course (48 h) of postoperative antibiotics is non-inferior to current standard practice of 5 days. METHODS: Patients of 8 years and older undergoing appendectomy for acute complex appendicitis - defined as a gangrenous and/or perforated appendicitis or appendicitis in presence of an abscess - are eligible for inclusion. Immunocompromised or pregnant patients are excluded, as well as patients with a contraindication to the study antibiotics. In total, 1066 patients will be randomly allocated in a 1:1 ratio to the experimental treatment arm (48 h of postoperative intravenously administered (IV) antibiotics) or the control arm (5 days of postoperative IV antibiotics). After discharge from the hospital, patients participate in a productivity-cost-questionnaire at 4 weeks and a standardized telephone follow-up at 90 days after appendectomy. The primary outcome is a composite endpoint of infectious complications, including intra-abdominal abscess (IAA) and surgical site infection (SSI), and mortality within 90 days after appendectomy. Secondary outcomes include IAA, SSI, restart of antibiotics, length of hospital stay (LOS), reoperation, percutaneous drainage, readmission rate, and cost-effectiveness. The non-inferiority margin for the difference in the primary endpoint rate is set at 7.5% (one-sided test at ɑ 0.025). Both per-protocol and intention-to-treat analyses will be performed. DISCUSSION: This trial will provide evidence on whether 48 h of postoperative antibiotics is non-inferior to a standard course of 5 days of antibiotics. If non-inferiority is established, longer intravenous administration following appendectomy for complex appendicitis can be abandoned, and guidelines need to be adjusted accordingly. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Dutch Trial Register, NTR6128 . Registered on 20 December 2016.

Health-related quality of life and cost-effectiveness analysis of gum chewing in patients undergoing colorectal surgery: results of a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Postoperative ileus (POI) and anastomotic leakage (AL) following colorectal surgery severely increase healthcare costs and decrease quality of life. This study evaluates the effects of reducing POI and AL via perioperative gum chewing compared to placebo (control) on in-hospital costs, health-related quality of life (HRQoL), and assesses cost-effectiveness. METHODS: In patients undergoing elective, open colorectal surgery, changes in HRQoL were assessed using EORTC-QLQ-C30 questionnaires and costs were estimated from a hospital perspective. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were estimated. RESULTS: In 112 patients, mean costs for ward stay were significantly lower in the gum chewing group when compared to control (€3522 (95% CI €3034-€4010) versus €4893 (95% CI €3843-€5942), respectively, p = .020). No differences were observed in mean overall in-hospital costs, or in mean change in any of the HRQoL scores or utilities. Gum chewing was dominant (less costly and more effective) compared to the control in more than 50% of the simulations for both POI and AL. CONCLUSION: Reducing POI and AL via gum chewing reduced costs for ward stay, but did not affect overall in-hospital costs, HRQoL, or mapped utilities. More studies with adequate sample sizes using validated questionnaires at standardized time points are needed.

Intrathoracic versus Cervical ANastomosis after minimally invasive esophagectomy for esophageal cancer: study protocol of the ICAN randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Currently, a cervical esophagogastric anastomosis (CEA) is often performed after minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE). However, the CEA is associated with a considerable incidence of anastomotic leakage requiring reintervention or reoperation and moderate functional results. An intrathoracic esophagogastric anastomosis (IEA) might reduce the incidence of anastomotic leakage, improve functional results and reduce costs. The objective of the ICAN trial is to compare anastomotic leakage and postoperative morbidity, mortality, quality of life and cost-effectiveness between CEA and IEA after MIE. METHODS/DESIGN: The ICAN trial is an open randomized controlled multicentre superiority trial, comparing CEA (control group) with IEA (intervention group) after MIE. All patients with esophageal cancer planning to undergo curative MIE are considered for inclusion. A total of 200 patients will be included in the study and randomized between the groups in a 1:1 ratio. The primary outcome is anastomotic leakage requiring reintervention or reoperation, and secondary outcomes are (amongst others) other postoperative complications, new onset of organ failure, length of stay, mortality, benign strictures requiring dilatation, quality of life and cost-effectiveness. DISCUSSION: We hypothesize that an IEA after MIE is associated with a lower incidence of anastomotic leakage requiring reintervention or reoperation than a CEA. The trial is also designed to give answers to additional research questions regarding a possible difference in functional outcome, quality of life and cost-effectiveness. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Netherlands Trial Register: NTR4333 . Registered on 23 December 2013.

Laparoscopic versus open gastrectomy for gastric cancer, a multicenter prospectively randomized controlled trial (LOGICA-trial).

BACKGROUND: For gastric cancer patients, surgical resection with en-bloc lymphadenectomy is the cornerstone of curative treatment. Open gastrectomy has long been the preferred surgical approach worldwide. However, this procedure is associated with considerable morbidity. Several meta-analyses have shown an advantage in short-term outcomes of laparoscopic gastrectomy compared to open procedures, with similar oncologic outcomes. However, it remains unclear whether the results of these Asian studies can be extrapolated to the Western population. In this trial from the Netherlands, patients with resectable gastric cancer will be randomized to laparoscopic or open gastrectomy. METHODS: The study is a non-blinded, multicenter, prospectively randomized controlled superiority trial. Patients (≥18 years) with histologically proven, surgically resectable (cT1-4a, N0-3b, M0) gastric adenocarcinoma and European Clinical Oncology Group performance status 0, 1 or 2 are eligible to participate in the study after obtaining informed consent. Patients (n = 210) will be included in one of the ten participating Dutch centers and are randomized to either laparoscopic or open gastrectomy. The primary outcome is postoperative hospital stay (days). Secondary outcome parameters include postoperative morbidity and mortality, oncologic outcomes, readmissions, quality of life and cost-effectiveness. DISCUSSION: In this randomized controlled trial laparoscopic and open gastrectomy are compared in patients with resectable gastric cancer. It is expected that laparoscopic gastrectomy will result in a faster recovery of the patient and a shorter hospital stay. Secondly, it is expected that laparoscopic gastrectomy will be associated with a lower postoperative morbidity, less readmissions, higher cost-effectiveness, better postoperative quality of life, but with similar mortality and oncologic outcomes, compared to open gastrectomy. The study started on 1 December 2014. Inclusion and follow-up will take 3 and 5 years respectively. Short-term results will be analyzed and published after discharge of the last randomized patient. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT02248519.