Socio-demographic and cultural factors related to non-participation in the Dutch colorectal cancer screening programme.

BACKGROUND: High participation rates are essential for a screening programme to be beneficial. To reach non-participants in a targeted manner, insight in characteristics of non-participants is needed. We investigated demographic differences between participants and non-participants in the Dutch faecal immunochemical test-based colorectal cancer (CRC) screening programme. METHODS: In this population-based cohort study, we included all invitees for CRC screening in 2018 and 2019. Participation status, birth year, and sex were extracted from the Dutch national screening information system and linked to demographic characteristics from Statistics Netherlands, including migration background, level of education, socioeconomic category, household composition, and household income. A multivariable logistic regression was used to assess the association between demographic factors and participation. RESULTS: A total of 4,383,861 individuals were invited for CRC screening in 2018 and 2019, of which 3,170,349 (72.3%) participated. Individuals were less likely to participate when they were single and/or living with others (single with other residents versus couple: odds ratio [OR] 0.34, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.31-0.38), had a migration background (e.g. Moroccan migrant versus Dutch background: OR 0.43, 95% CI: 0.42-0.44), or had a low income (lowest versus highest quintile: OR 0.45, 95% CI: 0.44-0.45). Although to a lesser extent, non-participation was also significantly associated with being male, being younger, receiving social welfare benefits and having a low level of education. CONCLUSION: We found that individuals who were single and/or living with others, immigrants from Morocco or individuals with low income were the least likely to participate in the Dutch CRC screening programme. Targeted interventions are needed to minimise inequities in CRC screening.

Cost-Effectiveness of Colorectal Cancer Surveillance in Hodgkin Lymphoma Survivors Treated with Procarbazine and/or Infradiaphragmatic Radiotherapy.

BACKGROUND: Hodgkin lymphoma survivors treated with infradiaphragmatic radiotherapy (IRT) and/or procarbazine have an increased risk of developing colorectal cancer. We investigated the cost-effectiveness of colorectal cancer surveillance in Dutch Hodgkin lymphoma survivors to determine the optimal surveillance strategy for different Hodgkin lymphoma subgroups. METHODS: The Microsimulation Screening Analysis-Colon model was adjusted to reflect colorectal cancer and other-cause mortality risk in Hodgkin lymphoma survivors. Ninety colorectal cancer surveillance strategies were evaluated varying in starting and stopping age, interval, and modality [colonoscopy, fecal immunochemical test (FIT, OC-Sensor; cutoffs: 10/20/47 µg Hb/g feces), and multi-target stool DNA test (Cologuard)]. Analyses were also stratified per primary treatment (IRT and procarbazine or procarbazine without IRT). Colorectal cancer deaths averted (compared with no surveillance) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER) were primary outcomes. The optimal surveillance strategy was identified assuming a willingness-to-pay threshold of €20,000 per life-years gained (LYG). RESULTS: Overall, the optimal surveillance strategy was annual FIT (47 µg) from age 45 to 70 years, which might avert 70% of colorectal cancer deaths in Hodgkin lymphoma survivors (compared with no surveillance; ICER:€18,000/LYG). The optimal surveillance strategy in Hodgkin lymphoma survivors treated with procarbazine without IRT was biennial FIT (47 µg) from age 45 to 70 years (colorectal cancer mortality averted 56%; ICER:€15,000/LYG), and when treated with IRT and procarbazine, annual FIT (47 µg) surveillance from age 40 to 70 was most cost-effective (colorectal cancer mortality averted 75%; ICER:€13,000/LYG). CONCLUSIONS: Colorectal cancer surveillance in Hodgkin lymphoma survivors is cost-effective and should commence earlier than screening occurs in population screening programs. For all subgroups, FIT surveillance was the most cost-effective strategy. IMPACT: Colorectal cancer surveillance should be implemented in Hodgkin lymphoma survivors.

Impact of surgical versus endoscopic management of complex nonmalignant polyps in a colorectal cancer screening program.

BACKGROUND: When complex nonmalignant polyps are detected in colorectal cancer (CRC) screening programs, patients may be referred directly to surgery or may first undergo additional endoscopy for attempted endoscopic removal by an expert. We compared the impact of both strategies on screening effectiveness and costs. METHODS: We used MISCAN-Colon to simulate the Dutch screening program, and projected CRC deaths prevented, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) gained, and costs for two scenarios: 1) surgery for all complex nonmalignant polyps; 2) attempted removal by an expert endoscopist first. We made the following assumptions: 3.9 % of screen-detected large nonmalignant polyps were complex; associated surgery mortality was 0.7 %; the rate of successful removal by an expert was 87 %, with 0.11 % mortality. RESULTS: The screening program was estimated to prevent 11.2 CRC cases (-16.7 %) and 10.1 CRC deaths (-27.1 %), resulting in 32.9 QALYs gained (+ 17.2 %) per 1000 simulated individuals over their lifetimes compared with no screening. The program would also result in 2.1 surgeries for complex nonmalignant polyps with 0.015 associated deaths per 1000 individuals. If, instead, these patients were referred to an expert endoscopist first, only 0.2 patients required surgery, reducing associated deaths by 0.013 at the expense of 0.003 extra colonoscopy deaths. Compared with direct referral to surgery, referral to an expert endoscopist gained 0.2 QALYs and saved €12 500 per 1000 individuals in the target population. CONCLUSION: Referring patients with complex polyps to an expert endoscopist first reduced some surgery-related deaths while substantially improving cost-effectiveness of the screening program.

Socioeconomic differences in participation and diagnostic yield within the Dutch national colorectal cancer screening programme with faecal immunochemical testing.

BACKGROUND: CRC mortality rates are higher for individuals with a lower socioeconomic status (SES). Screening could influence health inequalities. We therefore aimed to investigate SES differences in participation and diagnostic yield of FIT screening. METHODS: All invitees in 2014 and 2015 in the Dutch national CRC screening programme were included in the analyses. We used area SES as a measure for SES and divided invitees into quintiles, with Quintile 1 being the highest SES. Logistic regression analysis was used to compare the participation rate, positivity rate, colonoscopy uptake, positive predictive value (PPV) and detection rate across the SES groups. RESULTS: Participation to FIT screening was significantly lower for Quintile 5 (67.0%) compared to the other Quintiles (73.0% to 75.1%; adjusted OR quintile 5 versus quintile 1: 0.73, 95%CI: 0.72-0.74), as well as colonoscopy uptake after a positive FIT (adjusted OR 0.73, 95%CI: 0.69-0.77). The detection rate per FIT participant for advanced neoplasia gradually increased from 3.3% in Quintile 1 to 4.0% in Quintile 5 (adjusted OR 1.20%, 95%CI 1.16-1.24). As a result of lower participation, the yield per invitee was similar for Quintile 5 (2.04%) and Quintile 1 (2.00%), both being lower than Quintiles 2 to 4 (2.20%-2.28%). CONCLUSIONS: Screening has the potential to reduce health inequalities in CRC mortality, because of a higher detection in participants with a lower SES. However, in the Dutch screening programme, this is currently offset by the lower participation in this group.

Impact of expert center endoscopic assessment of confirmed low grade dysplasia in Barrett's esophagus diagnosed in community hospitals.

BACKGROUND : The optimal management for patients with low grade dysplasia (LGD) in Barrett's esophagus (BE) is unclear. According to the Dutch national guideline, all patients with LGD with histological confirmation of the diagnosis by an expert pathologist (i. e. "confirmed LGD"), are referred for a dedicated re-staging endoscopy at an expert center. We aimed to assess the diagnostic value of re-staging endoscopy by an expert endoscopist for patients with confirmed LGD. METHODS : This retrospective cohort study included all patients with flat BE diagnosed in a community hospital who had confirmed LGD and were referred to one of the nine Barrett Expert Centers (BECs) in the Netherlands. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients with prevalent high grade dysplasia (HGD) or cancer during re-staging in a BEC. RESULTS : Of the 248 patients with confirmed LGD, re-staging in the BEC revealed HGD or cancer in 23 % (57/248). In 79 % (45/57), HGD or cancer in a newly detected visible lesion was diagnosed. Of the remaining patients, re-staging in the BEC showed a second diagnosis of confirmed LGD in 68 % (168/248), while the remaining 9 % (23/248) had nondysplastic BE. CONCLUSION : One quarter of patients with apparent flat BE with confirmed LGD diagnosed in a community hospital had prevalent HGD or cancer after re-staging at an expert center. This endorses the advice to refer patients with confirmed LGD, including in the absence of visible lesions, to an expert center for re-staging endoscopy.

Clinical Validation of a Multitarget Fecal Immunochemical Test for Colorectal Cancer Screening : A Diagnostic Test Accuracy Study.

BACKGROUND: The fecal immunochemical test (FIT) is used in colorectal cancer (CRC) screening, yet it leaves room for improvement. OBJECTIVE: To develop a multitarget FIT (mtFIT) with better diagnostic performance than FIT. DESIGN: Diagnostic test accuracy study. SETTING: Colonoscopy-controlled series. PARTICIPANTS: Persons (n = 1284) from a screening (n = 1038) and referral (n = 246) population were classified by their most advanced lesion (CRC [n = 47], advanced adenoma [n = 135], advanced serrated polyp [n = 30], nonadvanced adenoma [n = 250], and nonadvanced serrated polyp [n = 53]), along with control participants (n = 769). MEASUREMENTS: Antibody-based assays were developed and applied to leftover FIT material. Classification and regression tree (CART) analysis was applied to biomarker concentrations to identify the optimal combination for detecting advanced neoplasia. Performance of this combination, the mtFIT, was cross-validated using a leave-one-out approach and compared with FIT at equal specificity. RESULTS: The CART analysis showed a combination of hemoglobin, calprotectin, and serpin family F member 2-the mtFIT-to have a cross-validated sensitivity for advanced neoplasia of 42.9% (95% CI, 36.2% to 49.9%) versus 37.3% (CI, 30.7% to 44.2%) for FIT (P = 0.025), with equal specificity of 96.6%. In particular, cross-validated sensitivity for advanced adenomas increased from 28.1% (CI, 20.8% to 36.5%) to 37.8% (CI, 29.6% to 46.5%) (P = 0.006). On the basis of these results, early health technology assessment indicated that mtFIT-based screening could be cost-effective compared with FIT. LIMITATION: Study population is enriched with persons from a referral population. CONCLUSION: Compared with FIT, the mtFIT showed better diagnostic accuracy in detecting advanced neoplasia because of an increased detection of advanced adenomas. Moreover, early health technology assessment indicated that these results provide a sound basis to pursue further development of mtFIT as a future test for population-based CRC screening. A prospective screening trial is in preparation. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: Stand Up to Cancer/Dutch Cancer Society, Dutch Digestive Foundation, and HealthHolland.

The Impact of the Policy-Practice Gap on Costs and Benefits of Barrett's Esophagus Management.

INTRODUCTION: Clinical guidelines recommend surveillance of patients with Barrett's esophagus (BE). However, the surveillance intervals in practice are shorter than policy recommendations. We aimed to determine how this policy-practice gap affects the costs and benefits of BE surveillance. METHODS: We used the Netherlands as an exemplary Western country and simulated a cohort of 60-year-old patients with BE using the Microsimulation Screening Analysis model-esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC) microsimulation model. We evaluated surveillance according to the Dutch guideline and more intensive surveillance of patients without dysplastic BE and low-grade dysplasia. For each strategy, we computed the quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) gained and costs compared with no surveillance. We also performed a budget impact analysis to estimate the increased costs of BE management in the Netherlands for 2017. RESULTS: Compared with no surveillance, the Dutch guideline incurred an additional &OV0556;5.0 ($5.7) million per 1,000 patients with BE for surveillance and treatment, whereas 57 esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC) cases (>T1a) were prevented. With intensive and very intensive surveillance strategies for both nondysplastic BE and low-grade dysplasia, the net costs increased by another &OV0556;2.5-5.6 ($2.8-6.5) million while preventing 10-19 more EAC cases and gaining 33-60 more QALYs. On a population level, this amounted to &OV0556;21-47 ($24-54) million (+32%-70%) higher healthcare costs in 2017. DISCUSSION: The policy-practice gap in BE surveillance intervals results in 50%-114% higher net costs for BE management for only 10%-18% increase in QALYs gained, depending on actual intensity of surveillance. Incentives to eliminate this policy-practice gap should be developed to reduce the burden of BE management on patients and healthcare resources.

Dutch Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Audit: automated extraction of colonoscopy data for quality assessment and improvement.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: The importance of having quality assessment, assurance, and improvement tools in health care is increasingly recognized. However, the additional associated administration burden progressively interferes with the structural implementation and adoption of such tools, especially when it concerns high-volume procedures such as colonoscopies. The development of the Dutch Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Audit (DGEA), a registry with automated extraction of colonoscopy quality data, and its first results are described. METHODS: In close cooperation with commercial endoscopy reporting systems and a national histopathology database, healthcare professionals performing colonoscopies initiated a quality registry that extracts data from its core hospital resource or histology database without manual interference of the healthcare providers. Data extracted consisted of patient age, gender, indication of the colonoscopy, American Society of Anesthesiologists score, Boston Bowel Preparation Score, and cecal intubation; for the colonoscopy after a positive fecal immunochemical test in the colorectal cancer screening program, other data were polyp detection rate, which was available for all 48 hospitals or endoscopy centers, and adenoma detection rate, which was available for 26 hospitals or endoscopy centers. RESULTS: Between January 1, 2016 and March 31, 2019, 48 hospitals or endoscopy centers voluntarily participated in the DGEA, and 275,017 unique patients with 313,511 colonoscopies were registered. Overall missing values were limited to <1%. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study demonstrate that it is feasible to deploy a quality registry collecting uniform data without additional administration burden for healthcare professionals.

Cost-effectiveness of Active Identification and Subsequent Colonoscopy Surveillance of Lynch Syndrome Cases.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: The province of Ontario, Canada is considering immunohistochemical followed by cascade analyses of all patients who received a diagnosis of colorectal cancer (CRC) at an age younger than 70 years to identify individuals with Lynch syndrome. We evaluated the costs and benefits of testing for Lynch syndrome and determined the optimal surveillance interval for first-degree relatives (FDRs) found to have Lynch syndrome. METHODS: We developed a patient flow diagram to determine costs and yield of immunohistochemical testing for Lynch syndrome in CRC cases and, for those found to have Lynch syndrome, their FDRs, accounting for realistic uptake. Subsequently, we used the MISCAN-colon model to compare costs and benefits of annual, biennial, and triennial surveillance in FDRs identified with Lynch syndrome vs colonoscopy screening every 10 years (usual care for individuals without a diagnosis of Lynch syndrome). RESULTS: Testing 1000 CRC cases was estimated to identify 20 CRC index cases and 29 FDRs with Lynch syndrome at a cost of $310,274. Despite the high cost of Lynch syndrome tests, offering the FDRs with Lynch syndrome biennial colonoscopy surveillance was cost-effective at $8785 per life-year gained compared with usual care because of a substantial increase in life-years gained (+122%) and cost savings in CRC care. Triennial surveillance was more costly and less effective, and annual surveillance showed limited additional benefit compared with biennial surveillance. CONCLUSIONS: Immunohistochemical testing for Lynch syndrome in persons younger than 70 years who received a diagnosis of CRC and then testing FDRs of those found to have Lynch syndrome provide a good balance between costs and long-term benefits. Colonoscopy surveillance every 2 years is the optimal surveillance interval for patients with Lynch syndrome.

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.

Do Men and Women Need to Be Screened Differently with Fecal Immunochemical Testing? A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis.

Background: Several studies suggest that test characteristics for the fecal immunochemical test (FIT) differ by gender, triggering a debate on whether men and women should be screened differently. We used the microsimulation model MISCAN-Colon to evaluate whether screening stratified by gender is cost-effective.Methods: We estimated gender-specific FIT characteristics based on first-round positivity and detection rates observed in a FIT screening pilot (CORERO-1). Subsequently, we used the model to estimate harms, benefits, and costs of 480 gender-specific FIT screening strategies and compared them with uniform screening.Results: Biennial FIT screening from ages 50 to 75 was less effective in women than men [35.7 vs. 49.0 quality-adjusted life years (QALY) gained, respectively] at higher costs (€42,161 vs. -€5,471, respectively). However, the incremental QALYs gained and costs of annual screening compared with biennial screening were more similar for both genders (8.7 QALYs gained and €26,394 for women vs. 6.7 QALYs gained and €20,863 for men). Considering all evaluated screening strategies, optimal gender-based screening yielded at most 7% more QALYs gained than optimal uniform screening and even resulted in equal costs and QALYs gained from a willingness-to-pay threshold of €1,300.Conclusions: FIT screening is less effective in women, but the incremental cost-effectiveness is similar in men and women. Consequently, screening stratified by gender is not more cost-effective than uniform FIT screening.Impact: Our conclusions support the current policy of uniform FIT screening. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev; 26(8); 1328-36. ©2017 AACR.

Colorectal cancer surveillance in Hodgkin lymphoma survivors at increased risk of therapy-related colorectal cancer: study design.

BACKGROUND: Second primary malignancies are a major cause of excess morbidity and mortality in cancer survivors. Hodgkin lymphoma survivors who were treated with infradiaphragmatic radiotherapy and/or high-dose procarbazine have an increased risk to develop colorectal cancer. Colonoscopy surveillance plays an important role in colorectal cancer prevention by removal of the precursor lesions (adenomas) and early detection of cancer, resulting in improved survival rates. Therefore, Hodgkin lymphoma survivors treated with infradiaphragmatic radiotherapy and/or high-dose procarbazine could benefit from colonoscopy, or other surveillance modalities, which are expected to reduce colorectal cancer incidence and mortality. Current knowledge on clinicopathological and molecular characteristics of therapy-related colorectal cancer is limited. The pathogenesis of such colorectal cancers might be different from the pathogenesis in the general population and therefore these patients might require a different clinical approach. We designed a study with the primary aim to assess the diagnostic yield of a first surveillance colonoscopy among Hodgkin lymphoma survivors at increased risk of colorectal cancer and to compare these results with different screening modalities in the general population. Secondary aims include assessment of the test characteristics of stool tests and evaluation of burden, acceptance and satisfaction of CRC surveillance through two questionnaires. METHODS/DESIGN: This prospective multicenter cohort study will include Hodgkin lymphoma survivors who survived ≥8 years after treatment with infradiaphragmatic radiotherapy and/or procarbazine (planned inclusion of 259 participants). Study procedures will consist of a surveillance colonoscopy with removal of precursor lesions (adenomas) and 6-8 normal colonic tissue biopsies, a fecal immunochemical test and a stool DNA test. All neoplastic lesions encountered will be classified using relevant histomorphological, immunohistochemical and molecular analyses in order to obtain more insight into colorectal carcinogenesis in Hodgkin lymphoma survivors. The Miscan-model will be used for cost-effectiveness analyses. DISCUSSION: Evaluation of the diagnostic performance, patient acceptance and burden of colorectal cancer surveillance is necessary for future implementation of an individualized colorectal cancer surveillance program for Hodgkin lymphoma survivors. In addition, more insight into treatment-induced colorectal carcinogenesis will provide the first step towards prevention and personalized treatment. This information may be extrapolated to other groups of cancer survivors. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Registered at the Dutch Trial Registry (NTR): NTR4961 .

Cost-Effectiveness of Cetuximab for Advanced Esophageal Squamous Cell Carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Costly biologicals in palliative oncology are emerging at a rapid pace. For example, in patients with advanced esophageal squamous cell carcinoma addition of cetuximab to a palliative chemotherapy regimen appears to improve survival. However, it simultaneously results in higher costs. We aimed to determine the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of adding cetuximab to first-line chemotherapeutic treatment of patients with advanced esophageal squamous cell carcinoma, based on data from a randomized controlled phase II trial. METHODS: A cost effectiveness analysis model was applied based on individual patient data. It included only direct medical costs from the health-care perspective. Quality-adjusted life-years and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were calculated. Sensitivity analysis was performed by a Monte Carlo analysis. RESULTS: Adding cetuximab to a cisplatin-5-fluorouracil first-line regimen for advanced esophageal squamous cell carcinoma resulted in an the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of €252,203 per quality-adjusted life-year. Sensitivity analysis shows that there is a chance of less than 0.001 that the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio will be less than a maximum willingness to pay threshold of €40,000 per quality-adjusted life-year, which is representative for the threshold used in The Netherlands and other developed countries. CONCLUSIONS: Addition of cetuximab to a cisplatin-5-fluorouracil first-line regimen for advanced esophageal squamous cell carcinoma is not cost-effective when appraised according to currently accepted criteria. Cost-effectiveness analyses using outcome data from early clinical trials (i.c. a phase II trial) enable pharmaceutical companies and policy makers to gain early insight into whether a new drug meets the current eligibility standards for reimbursement and thereby potential admittance for use in regular clinical practice.

Cost-effectiveness of routine screening for Lynch syndrome in colorectal cancer patients up to 70 years of age.

PURPOSE: To assess the cost-effectiveness of routine Lynch syndrome (LS) screening among colorectal cancer (CRC) patients ≤70 years of age. METHODS: A population-based series of CRC patients ≤70 years of age was routinely screened for LS. We calculated life years gained (LYG) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) for different age cutoffs and comparing age-targeted screening with the revised Bethesda guidelines. RESULTS: Screening 1,117 CRC patients identified 23 LS patients, of whom 7 were ≤50 years of age, 7 were 51-60, and 9 were 61-70. Additionally, 70 LS carriers were identified among relatives (14, 42, and 14 per age category). Screening amounted to 205.9 LYG or 43.6, 118.0, and 44.3 LYG per age category. ICERs were [euro ]4.226/LYG for screening CRC patients ≤60 years of age compared with those ≤50 years and [euro ]7.051/LYG for screening CRC patients ≤70 years compared with those ≤60 years. The revised Bethesda guidelines identified 70 of 93 (75%) LS carriers. The ICER for LS screening in CRC patients ≤70 years of age compared with the revised Bethesda guidelines was [euro ]7.341/LYG. All ICERs remained less than [euro ]13.000/LYG in one-way sensitivity analyses. CONCLUSION: Routine LS screening by analysis of microsatellite instability, immunohistochemistry, and MLH1 hypermethylation in CRC patients ≤70 years of age is a cost-effective strategy with important clinical benefits for CRC patients and their relatives.Genet Med 18 10, 966-973.

Nurse-led follow-up at home vs. conventional medical outpatient clinic follow-up in patients with incurable upper gastrointestinal cancer: a randomized study.

CONTEXT: Upper gastrointestinal cancer is associated with a poor prognosis. The multidimensional problems of incurable patients require close monitoring and frequent support, which cannot sufficiently be provided during conventional one to two month follow-up visits to the outpatient clinic. OBJECTIVES: To compare nurse-led follow-up at home with conventional medical follow-up in the outpatient clinic for patients with incurable primary or recurrent esophageal, pancreatic, or hepatobiliary cancer. METHODS: Patients were randomized to nurse-led follow-up at home or conventional medical follow-up in the outpatient clinic. Outcome parameters were quality of life (QoL), patient satisfaction, and health care consumption, measured by different questionnaires at one and a half and four months after randomization. As well, cost analyses were done for both follow-up strategies in the first four months. RESULTS: In total, 138 patients were randomized, of which 66 (48%) were evaluable. At baseline, both groups were similar with respect to clinical and sociodemographic characteristics and health-related QoL. Patients in the nurse-led follow-up group were significantly more satisfied with the visits, whereas QoL and health care consumption within the first four months were comparable between the two groups. Nurse-led follow-up was less expensive than conventional medical follow-up. However, the total costs for the first four months of follow-up in this study were higher in the nurse-led follow-up group because of a higher frequency of visits. CONCLUSION: The results suggest that conventional medical follow-up is interchangeable with nurse-led follow-up. A cost utility study is necessary to determine the preferred frequency and duration of the home visits.

Preoperative assessment of tumor location and station-specific lymph node status in patients with adenocarcinoma of the gastroesophageal junction.

BACKGROUND: In esophageal cancer patients preoperative staging will determine the type of surgical procedure and use of neoadjuvant therapy. Tumor location and lymph node status play a pivotal role in this tailored strategy. The aim of the present study was to prospectively evaluate the accuracy of preoperative assessment of tumor location according to the Siewert classification and lymph node status per station with endoscopy/endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) and computed tomography (CT). METHODS: In 50 esophagectomy patients with adenocarcinoma of the gastroesophageal junction (GEJ), tumor location according to Siewert and N-stage per nodal station as determined preoperatively by endoscopy/EUS and CT were compared with the histopathologic findings in the resection specimen. RESULTS: Overall accuracy in predicting tumor location according to the Siewert classification was 70 % for endoscopy/EUS and 72 % for CT. Preoperative data could not be compared with the pathologic assessment in 11 patients (22 %), as large tumors obscured the landmark of the gastric folds. The overall accuracy for predicting the N-stage in 250 lymph node stations was 66 % for EUS and 68 % for CT. The accuracy was good for those stations located high in the thorax, but poor for celiac trunk nodes. CONCLUSIONS: Given the frequent discrepancy between the endoscopic and pathologic location of the GEJ and the common problem of advanced tumors obscuring the landmarks used in the assessment of the Siewert classification, its usefulness is limited. The overall accuracy for EUS and CT in predicting the N-stage per station was moderate.