Variation Between Multidisciplinary Tumor Boards in Clinical Staging and Treatment Recommendations for Patients With Locally Advanced Non-small Cell Lung Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Accurate diagnosis and staging are crucial to ensure uniform allocation to the optimal treatment methods for non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients, but may differ among multidisciplinary tumor boards (MDTs). Discordance between clinical and pathologic TNM stage is particularly important for patients with locally advanced NSCLC (stage IIIA) because it may influence their chance of allocation to curative-intent treatment. We therefore aimed to study agreement on staging and treatment to gain insight into MDT decision-making. RESEARCH QUESTION: What is the level of agreement on clinical staging and treatment recommendations among MDTs in stage IIIA NSCLC patients? STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: Eleven MDTs each evaluated the same 10 pathologic stage IIIA NSCLC patients in their weekly meeting (n = 110). Patients were selected purposively for their challenging nature. All MDTs received exactly the same clinical information and images per patient. We tested agreement in cT stage, cN stage, cM stage (TNM 8th edition), and treatment proposal among MDTs using Randolph's free-marginal multirater kappa. RESULTS: Considerable variation among the MDTs was seen in T staging (κ, 0.55 [95% CI, 0.34-0.75]), N staging (κ, 0.59 [95% CI, 0.35-0.83]), overall TNM staging (κ, 0.53 [95% CI, 0.35-0.72]), and treatment recommendations (κ, 0.44 [95% CI, 0.32-0.56]). Most variation in T stage was seen in patients with suspicion of invasion of surrounding structures, which influenced such treatment recommendations as induction therapy and type. For N stage, distinction between N1 and N2 disease was an important source of discordance among MDTs. Variation occurred between 2 patients even regarding M stage. A wide range of additional diagnostics was proposed by the MDTs. INTERPRETATION: This study demonstrated high variation in staging and treatment of patients with stage IIIA NSCLC among MDTs in different hospitals. Although some variation may be unavoidable in these challenging patients, we should strive for more uniformity.

Quality improvement of pancreatic surgery by centralization in the western part of the Netherlands.

BACKGROUND: Centralization of pancreatic surgery in high-volume hospitals is under debate in many countries. In the western part of the Netherlands, the professional network of surgical oncologists agreed to centralize all pancreatic surgery from 2006 in two high-volume hospitals. Our aim is to evaluate whether centralization of pancreatic surgery has improved clinical outcomes and has changed referral patterns. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Data of the Comprehensive Cancer Centre West (CCCW) of all 249 patients who had a resection for suspected pancreatic cancer between 1996 and 2008 in the western part of the Netherlands were analyzed. Multivariable modeling was used to evaluate survival for 3 time periods; 1996-2000, 2001-2005 (introduction of quality standards), and 2006-2008 (after centralization). In addition, the differences in referral pattern were analyzed. RESULTS: From 2006, all pancreatic surgery was centralized in 2 hospitals. The 2-year survival rate increased after centralization from 39% to 55% (P =.09) for all patients who had a pancreatic resection for pancreatic cancer. After adjustment for age, tumor location, stage, histology, and adjuvant treatment, the latter period was significantly associated with improved survival (hazard ratio [HR] 0.50; 95% confidence interval [95% CI] 0.34-0.73). CONCLUSIONS: Centralization of pancreatic surgery was successful and has resulted in improved clinical outcomes in the western part of the Netherlands, demonstrating the effectiveness of centralization.

A randomized two arm phase III study in patients post radical resection of liver metastases of colorectal cancer to investigate bevacizumab in combination with capecitabine plus oxaliplatin (CAPOX) vs CAPOX alone as adjuvant treatment.

BACKGROUND: About 50% of patients with colorectal cancer are destined to develop hepatic metastases. Radical resection is the most effective treatment for patients with colorectal liver metastases offering five year survival rates between 36-60%. Unfortunately only 20% of patients are resectable at time of presentation. Radiofrequency ablation is an alternative treatment option for irresectable colorectal liver metastases with reported 5 year survival rates of 18-30%. Most patients will develop local or distant recurrences after surgery, possibly due to the outgrowth of micrometastases present at the time of liver surgery. This study aims to achieve an improved disease free survival for patients after resection or resection combined with RFA of colorectal liver metastases by adding the angiogenesis inhibitor bevacizumab to an adjuvant regimen of CAPOX. METHODS/DESIGN: The Hepatica study is a two-arm, multicenter, randomized, comparative efficacy and safety study. Patients are assessed no more than 8 weeks before surgery with CEA measurement and CT scanning of the chest and abdomen. Patients will be randomized after resection or resection combined with RFA to receive CAPOX and Bevacizumab or CAPOX alone. Adjuvant treatment will be initiated between 4 and 8 weeks after metastasectomy or resection in combination with RFA. In both arms patients will be assessed for recurrence/new occurrence of colorectal cancer by chest CT, abdominal CT and CEA measurement. Patients will be assessed after surgery but before randomization, thereafter every three months after surgery in the first two years and every 6 months until 5 years after surgery. In case of a confirmed recurrence/appearance of new colorectal cancer, patients can be treated with surgery or any subsequent line of chemotherapy and will be followed for survival until the end of study follow up period as well. The primary endpoint is disease free survival. Secondary endpoints are overall survival, safety and quality of life. CONCLUSION: The HEPATICA study is designed to demonstrate a disease free survival benefit by adding bevacizumab to an adjuvant regime of CAPOX in patients with colorectal liver metastases undergoing a radical resection or resection in combination with RFA. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier NCT00394992.

[The quality indicator 'tumour positive surgical margin following breast-conserving surgery' does not provide transparent insight into care]. / De prestatie-indicator 'irradicaliteit na borstsparende operatie': geen zuiver zicht op goede zorg.

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether the quality indicator 'tumour positive surgical margin following breast-conserving surgery, consistently measured the quality of breast-cancer surgery independently of the different definitions used and differences in case mix, taking statistical random variation into account. DESIGN: Descriptive study. METHODS: Data was collected from 762 patients who underwent breast-conserving surgery for invasive or in situ carcinoma of the breast, in the period 1 July 2007 - 30 June 2008 in 1 of the 9 hospitals in the region of the Comprehensive Cancer Centre West in the Netherlands. We compared 3 definitions for 'tumour positive surgical margin': the one used by the Health Care Inspectorate, the one used by the organisation 'Zichtbare Zorg' ('transparent care') and the percentage of re-resection. For case mix correction we identified risk factors for tumour margin positivity with logistic regression. The results were presented in a funnel plot, using 95% confidence interval (CI) around the national standard of 20%. RESULTS: Depending on the definition used, the tumour positive surgical margin rate of the total group varied from 11 to 21%. Individual hospital rates varied by up to 19%. In situ carcinoma was associated with higher tumour positive surgical margin rates. Results differed significantly between hospitals for all 3 definitions. However, the funnel plot showed that results for most hospitals fell within the 95% CI of the standard. Whether a hospital fell within the 95% CI of the standard depended upon on the definition used and case mix correction. CONCLUSION: The lack of a single definition for the quality indicator 'tumour positive surgical margin following breast-conserving surgery' and the lack of case-mix correction undermine the validity of the indicator. Standardisation of definitions, uniform registration and the use of funnel plots can provide a more transparent insight into the quality of care.