RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Safety of minimally invasive surgery (MIS) for gastrointestinal stromal tumours (GISTs) is still under debate since it might increase the risk of tumour rupture, especially in larger tumours. The aim of this study was to investigate trends in treatment and perioperative outcomes of patients undergoing resections of gastric GISTs over time. METHODS: This was a multicentre retrospective study of consecutive patients who underwent wedge resection or partial gastrectomy for localized gastric GIST at five GIST reference centres between January 2009 and January 2022. To evaluate changes in treatment and perioperative outcomes over time, patients were divided into four equal periods. Perioperative outcomes were analysed separately and as a novel composite measure textbook outcome (TO). RESULTS: In total 385 patients were included. Patient and tumour characteristics did not change over time, except for median age (62-65-68-68 years, p = 0.002). The proportion of MIS increased (4.0%-9.8%-37.4%-53.0 %, p < 0.001). Postoperative complications (Clavien Dindo ≥2; 22%-15%-11%-10 %, p = 0.146), duration of admission (6-6-5-4 days, p < 0.001) and operating time (92-94-77-73 min, p = 0.007) decreased over time while TO increased (54.0%- 52.7%-65.9%-76.0 %, p < 0.001). No change was seen in perioperative ruptures (6.0%- 3.6%-1.6%-3.0 %, p = 0.499). MIS was correlated with less CD ≥ 2 complications (p = 0.006), shorter duration of admission (p < 0.001) and more TO (p < 0.001). Similar results were observed in tumours ≤5 cm and >5 cm. CONCLUSION: A larger percentage of gastric GIST were treated with MIS over time. MIS was correlated with less complications, shorter duration of admission and more TO. Tumour rupture rates remained low over time.
RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Older patients with cancer often find it difficult to take part in shared decision making. AIM: To assess the utility of the Outcome Prioritisation Tool (OPT), designed to aid discussion with a patient in regards to their treatment goals, to empower patients with cancer through structured conversations about generic treatment goals with GPs. DESIGN AND SETTING: A randomised controlled trial of 114 Dutch participants recruited between November 2015 and January 2019, aged ≥60 years with non-curable cancer who had to make a treatment decision with an oncologist. The intervention group used the OPT while the control group received care as usual. METHOD: The primary outcome was patient empowerment using the score on the decision self-efficacy (DSE) scale. Secondary outcomes were symptoms measures of fatigue, anxiety, and depression. The experiences of participants were also explored. RESULTS: No effect was found on patient empowerment between the OPT group (n = 48; DSE 86.8; standard deviation [SD] = 18.2) and the control group (n = 58; DSE 84.2; SD = 17.6; P = 0.47). In the OPT group, although statistically non-significant, fewer patients had low empowerment (18.8%, n = 9 versus 24.1%, n = 14; P = 0.50), but they did have statistically significant lower mean anxiety scores (6.0, SD = 4.6 versus 7.6, SD = 4.4; P<0.05) and less mild fatigue (58.8%, n = 30 versus 77.2%, n = 44; P = 0.05). Overall, 44.8% (n = 13) of patients indicated that the OPT-facilitated conversation helped them make a treatment decision, and 31.1% (n = 14) of the GPs reported that they gained new insights from the conversation. CONCLUSION: An OPT-facilitated conversation about generic treatment goals between patients and their GPs is associated with less anxiety and fatigue, but did not show statistically significant improvements in patient empowerment. Adding the OPT to routine care might ensure more patient-tailored care.