Patient Views on Surgeon-specific Outcome Reporting in Vascular Surgery: Novel Validated Patient Questionnaire Study.

BACKGROUND: SSMD are used to enhance transparency, improve quality and facilitate patient choice. The use of SSMD is controversial, but patients' views on such data are largely unknown. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was therefore to explore the views of patients and to identify their priorities for outcome reporting in vascular surgery. METHODS: A prospective questionnaire study of 165 patients receiving care in a single academic vascular unit was performed. Data on patients' current understanding and use of SSMD, together with future priorities were collected. RESULTS: Of the 165 patients 80% were unaware of SSMD. 72% thought they should be made aware of the data, although 63% thought they were likely to misinterpret the results. The majority recognized the utility of SSMD to inform treatment (60%) and surgeon (53%) choice. The majority prioritize the patient-surgeon relationship (90%) and past experiences of care (71%) when making treatment decisions. A significant majority (66% vs 49%; P < 0.005) would favour hospital-level to surgeon-level data. The main patient priorities for future outcome reporting were waiting list length (56%), the quality of hospital facilities (55%), and patient satisfaction (54%). CONCLUSIONS: The aims of SSMD reporting are not currently being met, and both patients and healthcare professionals have shared concerns over the nature and usefulness of the data. Patients express a preference for hospital-level outcomes and prioritize the experience of receiving care over outcomes when making treatment decisions. Future outcome reporting should include patient-directed hospital-level metrics that are readily accessible and understood by all.

Treatment Stage Migration Maximizes Survival Outcomes in Patients with Hepatocellular Carcinoma Treated with Sorafenib: An Observational Study.

BACKGROUND: Level I evidence supports the use of sorafenib in patients with Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer (BCLC) stage C hepatocellular carcinoma, where heterogeneity in efficacy exists due to varying clinicopathologic features of the disease. AIM: We evaluated whether prior treatment with curative or locoregional therapies influences sorafenib-specific survival. METHODS: From a prospective data set of 785 consecutive patients from international specialist centres, 264 patients (34%) were treatment naïve (TN) and 521 (66%) were pre-treated (PT), most frequently with transarterial chemoembolization (n = 413; 79%). The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS) from sorafenib initiation with prognostic factors tested on uni- and multivariate analyses. RESULTS: Median OS for the entire cohort was 9 months; the median sorafenib duration was 2.8 months, with discontinuation being secondary to progression (n = 454; 58%) or toxicity (n = 149; 19%). PT patients had significantly longer OS than TN patients (10.5 vs. 6.6 months; p < 0.001). Compared to TN patients, PT patients had a better Child-Pugh (CP) class (CP A: 57 vs. 47%; p < 0.001) and a lower BCLC stage (BCLC A-B, 40 vs. 30%; p = 0.007). PT status preserved an independent prognostic role (p = 0.002) following adjustment for BCLC stage, α-fetoprotein, CP class, aetiology, and post-sorafenib treatment status. PT patients were more likely to receive further anticancer treatment after sorafenib (31 vs. 9%; p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Patients receiving sorafenib after having failed curative or locoregional therapies survive longer and are more likely to receive further treatment after sorafenib. This suggests an incremental benefit to OS from sequential exposure to multiple lines of therapy, justifying treatment stage migration in eligible patients.