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.

An evaluation of postoperative outcomes and treatment changes after frailty screening and geriatric assessment and management in a cohort of older patients with colorectal cancer.

INTRODUCTION: Adequate patient selection is crucial within the treatment of older patients with colorectal cancer (CRC). While previous studies report increased morbidity and mortality in older patients screened positive for frailty, improvements in the perioperative care and postoperative outcomes have raised the question of whether older patients screened positive for frailty still face worse outcomes. This study aimed to investigate the postoperative outcomes of older patients with CRC screened positive for frailty, and to evaluate changes in treatment after frailty screening and geriatric assessment. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients ≥70 years with primary CRC who underwent frailty screening between 1 January 2019 and 31 October 2021 were included. Frailty screening was performed by the Geriatric-8 (G8) screening tool. If the G8 indicated frailty (G8 ≤ 14), patients were referred for a comprehensive geriatric assessment (CGA). Postoperative outcomes and changes in treatment based on frailty screening and CGA were evaluated. RESULTS: A total of 170 patients were included, of whom 74 (43.5%) screened positive for frailty (G8 ≤ 14). Based on the CGA, the initially proposed treatment plan was altered to a less intensive regimen in five (8.9%) patients, and to a more intensive regimen in one (1.8%) patient. Surgery was performed in 87.8% of patients with G8 ≤ 14 and 96.9% of patients with G8 > 14 (p = 0.03). Overall postoperative complications were similar between patients with G8 ≤ 14 and G8 > 14 (46.2% vs. 47.3%, p = 0.89). Postoperative delirium was observed in 7.7% of patients with G8 ≤ 14 and 1.1% of patients with G8 > 14 (p = 0.08). No differences in 30-day mortality (1.1% vs. 1.5%, p > 0.99) or one-year and two-year survival rates were observed (log rank, p = 0.26). DISCUSSION: Although patients screened positive for frailty underwent CRC surgery less often, those considered eligible for surgery can safely undergo CRC resection within current clinical care pathways, without increased morbidity and mortality. Efforts to optimise perioperative care and minimise the risk of postoperative complications, in particular delirium, seem warranted. A multidisciplinary onco-geriatric pathway may support tailored decision-making in patients at risk of frailty.

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.

Inequalities in the omission of axillary dissection in sentinel lymph node positive patients in the Netherlands: Innovative hospitals are early adopters of a de-escalating approach.

During the last decade completion axillary lymph node dissection (cALND) was gradually omitted in sentinel lymph node positive (SLN+) breast cancer patients. However, adoption varies among hospitals. We analyzed factors associated with the omission of cALND in all Dutch SLN+ patients. As one of the focus hospital-related factors we defined "innovative" as the percentage of gene-expression profile (GEP) deployment within the indicated group of patients per hospital as a proxy for early adoption of innovations. cT1-2N0M0 SLN+ patients treated between 2011 and 2018 were selected from the Netherlands Cancer Registry. Hospitals were defined to be innovative based on their GEP use. Multivariable logistic regression (MLR) was performed to assess the relationship between innovative capacity, patient-, treatment- and hospital-related characteristics and cALND performance. 14 317 patients were included. Treatment in a hospital with high innovative capacity was associated with a lower probability of receiving cALND (OR 0.69, OR 0.46 and OR 0.35 in modestly, fairly and very innovative, respectively). Other factors associated with a lower probability of receiving a cALND were age 70 and 79 years and ≥79 years (ORs 0.59 [95% CI: 0.50-0.68] and 0.21 [95% CI: 0.17-0.26]) and treatment in an academic hospital (OR 0.41 [95% CI: 0.33-0.51]). Factors associated with an increased probability of undergoing cALND were HR-/HER2- tumors (OR 1.46 [95% CI: 1.19-1.80]), macrometastatic lymph node involvement (OR 6.37 [95% CI: 5.70-7.13]) and mastectomy (OR 4.57 [95% CI: 4.09-5.10]). Patients treated in a hospital that early adopted innovations were less likely to receive cALND. Our findings endorse the need for studies on barriers and facilitators of implementing innovations.

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.

Neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy plus surgery versus active surveillance for oesophageal cancer: a stepped-wedge cluster randomised trial.

BACKGROUND: Neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (nCRT) plus surgery is a standard treatment for locally advanced oesophageal cancer. With this treatment, 29% of patients have a pathologically complete response in the resection specimen. This provides the rationale for investigating an active surveillance approach. The aim of this study is to assess the (cost-)effectiveness of active surveillance vs. standard oesophagectomy after nCRT for oesophageal cancer. METHODS: This is a phase-III multi-centre, stepped-wedge cluster randomised controlled trial. A total of 300 patients with clinically complete response (cCR, i.e. no local or disseminated disease proven by histology) after nCRT will be randomised to show non-inferiority of active surveillance to standard oesophagectomy (non-inferiority margin 15%, intra-correlation coefficient 0.02, power 80%, 2-sided α 0.05, 12% drop-out). Patients will undergo a first clinical response evaluation (CRE-I) 4-6 weeks after nCRT, consisting of endoscopy with bite-on-bite biopsies of the primary tumour site and other suspected lesions. Clinically complete responders will undergo a second CRE (CRE-II), 6-8 weeks after CRE-I. CRE-II will include 18F-FDG-PET-CT, followed by endoscopy with bite-on-bite biopsies and ultra-endosonography plus fine needle aspiration of suspected lymph nodes and/or PET- positive lesions. Patients with cCR at CRE-II will be assigned to oesophagectomy (first phase) or active surveillance (second phase of the study). The duration of the first phase is determined randomly over the 12 centres, i.e., stepped-wedge cluster design. Patients in the active surveillance arm will undergo diagnostic evaluations similar to CRE-II at 6/9/12/16/20/24/30/36/48 and 60 months after nCRT. In this arm, oesophagectomy will be offered only to patients in whom locoregional regrowth is highly suspected or proven, without distant dissemination. The main study parameter is overall survival; secondary endpoints include percentage of patients who do not undergo surgery, quality of life, clinical irresectability (cT4b) rate, radical resection rate, postoperative complications, progression-free survival, distant dissemination rate, and cost-effectiveness. We hypothesise that active surveillance leads to non-inferior survival, improved quality of life and a reduction in costs, compared to standard oesophagectomy. DISCUSSION: If active surveillance and surgery as needed after nCRT leads to non-inferior survival compared to standard oesophagectomy, this organ-sparing approach can be implemented as a standard of care.

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.

Acute cholecystitis in high risk surgical patients: percutaneous cholecystostomy versus laparoscopic cholecystectomy (CHOCOLATE trial): study protocol for a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic cholecystectomy in acute calculous cholecystitis in high risk patients can lead to significant morbidity and mortality. Percutaneous cholecystostomy may be an alternative treatment option but the current literature does not provide the surgical community with evidence based advice. METHODS/DESIGN: The CHOCOLATE trial is a randomised controlled, parallel-group, superiority multicenter trial. High risk patients, defined as APACHE-II score 7-14, with acute calculous cholecystitis will be randomised to laparoscopic cholecystectomy or percutaneous cholecystostomy. During a two year period 284 patients will be enrolled from 30 high volume teaching hospitals. The primary endpoint is a composite endpoint of major complications within three months following randomization and need for re-intervention and mortality during the follow-up period of one year. Secondary endpoints include all other complications, duration of hospital admission, difficulty of procedures and total costs. DISCUSSION: The CHOCOLATE trial is designed to provide the surgical community with an evidence based guideline in the treatment of acute calculous cholecystitis in high risk patients. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Netherlands Trial Register (NTR): NTR2666.

NEOadjuvant therapy monitoring with PET and CT in Esophageal Cancer (NEOPEC-trial).

BACKGROUND: Surgical resection is the preferred treatment of potentially curable esophageal cancer. To improve long term patient outcome, many institutes apply neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy. In a large proportion of patients no response to chemoradiotherapy is achieved. These patients suffer from toxic and ineffective neoadjuvant treatment, while appropriate surgical therapy is delayed. For this reason a diagnostic test that allows for accurate prediction of tumor response early during chemoradiotherapy is of crucial importance. CT-scan and endoscopic ultrasound have limited accuracy in predicting histopathologic tumor response. Data suggest that metabolic changes in tumor tissue as measured by FDG-PET predict response better. This study aims to compare FDG-PET and CT-scan for the early prediction of non-response to preoperative chemoradiotherapy in patients with potentially curable esophageal cancer. METHODS/DESIGN: Prognostic accuracy study, embedded in a randomized multicenter Dutch trial comparing neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy for 5 weeks followed by surgery versus surgery alone for esophageal cancer. This prognostic accuracy study is performed only in the neoadjuvant arm of the randomized trial. In 6 centers, 150 consecutive patients will be included over a 3 year period. FDG-PET and CT-scan will be performed before and 2 weeks after the start of the chemoradiotherapy. All patients complete the 5 weeks regimen of neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy, regardless the test results. Pathological examination of the surgical resection specimen will be used as reference standard. Responders are defined as patients with < 10% viable residual tumor cells (Mandard-score).Difference in accuracy (area under ROC curve) and negative predictive value between FDG-PET and CT-scan are primary endpoints. Furthermore, an economic evaluation will be performed, comparing survival and costs associated with the use of FDG-PET (or CT-scan) to predict tumor response with survival and costs of neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy without prediction of response (reference strategy). DISCUSSION: The NEOPEC-trial could be the first sufficiently powered study that helps justify implementation of FDG-PET for response-monitoring in patients with esophageal cancer in clinical practice. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN45750457.