Incidence and predictors of splanchnic vein thrombosis and mortality following hepatobiliary and pancreatic surgery.

BACKGROUND: Intraabdominal surgery is a known risk factor for splanchnic vein thrombosis (SVT). SVT incidence, management, and prognosis after hepatopancreatobiliary surgery are unknown. OBJECTIVES: To determine the incidence and prognosis of SVT following hepatopancreatobiliary surgery and describe current practices in anticoagulation for postoperative SVT. PATIENTS/METHODS: Multicenter retrospective cohort study of adults undergoing hepatopancreatobiliary surgery. Multivariable analyses for predictors of SVT, major bleeding, and 90-day mortality were performed. RESULTS: Of 1815 patients included, 89 (4.9%) had cirrhosis and 1532 (84.4%) had active cancer. The most frequent surgeries were pancreaticoduodenectomy (40.6%), open (30.7%), and laparoscopic (11.0%) liver resection. Sixty (3.3%) patients experienced SVT within 90 days of surgery. Among patients with SVT, 23.3% were symptomatic and 75.0% were treated with therapeutic anticoagulation. Planned duration of anticoagulation averaged 3 to 6 months. By multivariable analysis, SVT predictors were: operative time (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] per hour increase 1.32, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.20-1.46), cirrhosis (aOR 3.22, 95% CI 1.28-8.10), and postoperative intraabdominal infection (aOR 2.99, 95% CI 1.72-5.19). Postoperative major bleeding occurred in 22.1% of patients and 4.0% died within 90 days. Predictors of postoperative mortality were age (aOR per 10-year increase 1.79, 95% CI 1.38-2.30), operative time (aOR 1.31 (1.17-1.45), cirrhosis (aOR 4.42, 95% CI 1.96-9.96), postoperative intraabdominal infection (aOR 2.66, 95% CI 1.55-4.57), postoperative major bleeding (aOR 4.12, 95% CI 2.36-7.30), and postoperative SVT (aOR 3.15, 95% CI 1.42-6.97). CONCLUSION: SVT occurred in 1 in 30 patients after hepatopancreatobiliary surgery and was associated with a 3-fold independent increase in 90-day mortality.

Risk factors for survival following recurrence after first liver resection for colorectal cancer liver metastases.

BACKGROUND: Management of recurrence following liver resection for colorectal cancer metastases is a topic of debate. We determined risk factors for survival following recurrence after liver resection. METHODS: Long-term follow-up of patients in the PETCAM trial who had recurrence following liver resection. Risk groups were created according to their survival risk. Differences in overall survival (OS) between groups were estimated. Disease-free survival (DFS), patterns of disease recurrence and management were determined. Cox proportional hazard models, Kaplan-Meier method, and the log-rank test were used. RESULTS: Among 368 patients who underwent liver resection, 264 (72%) experienced disease recurrence (51% lung and 41% liver). Following liver resection, DFS: 17 months (95% CI, 14-19); OS: 57 months (95% CI, 46-70). In those who recurred, 120 (45%) received chemotherapy only, and 112 (42%) underwent second surgical resection. Among patients who experienced recurrence (n = 264), the high-risk group (more than one site of recurrence or disease-free duration < 5 months and node-positive disease) had median OS: 19 months (95% CI, 15-23) vs 36 months (95% CI, 30-48) for patients in the low-risk group (HR = 2.9, 95% CI, 2.2-3.9). CONCLUSION: Recurrence following liver resection is common. Following recurrence after liver resection, patients should be carefully selected for surgical re-resection based on risk factors.

Routine Surveillance of Chemotherapy Toxicities in Cancer Patients Using the Patient-Reported Outcomes Version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (PRO-CTCAE).

INTRODUCTION: Systematic documentation of chemotoxicities in outpatient clinics is challenging. Incorporating patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures in clinical workflows can be an efficient strategy to strengthen the assessment of symptomatic treatment toxicities in oncology clinical practice. We compared the adequateness, feasibility, and acceptability of toxicity documentation using systematic, prospective, application of the PRO Common Toxicity Criteria for Adverse Events (PRO-CTCAE) tool. METHODS: At a comprehensive cancer center, data abstraction of electronic health record reviews elucidated current methods and degree of chemotoxicity documentation. Web-based 32-item PRO-CTCAE questionnaires, administered in ambulatory clinics of patients receiving chemotherapy, captured chemotoxicities and respective severities. Patient telephone surveys assessed whether healthcare providers had addressed chemotoxicities to the patients' satisfaction. RESULTS: Over a broad demographic of 497 patients receiving chemotherapy, 90% (95% CI 84-96%) with significant chemotoxicities (n = 107) reported that their providers had discussed toxicities with them; of these, 70% received a therapy management change, while among the rest, 17% desired a change in management. Of patients surveyed, 91% (95% CI 82-99%) were satisfied with their current chemotoxicity management. Clinician chart documentation varied greatly; descriptors rather than numerical grading scales were typically used. Although 93% of patients were willing to complete the PRO survey, only 50% thought that it would be acceptable to complete this survey at routine clinic visits. CONCLUSION: Use of PRO-CTCAE in routine clinical practice promotes systematic evaluation of symptomatic toxicities and improves the clarity, consistency, and efficiency of clinician documentation; however, methods to improve patient willingness to complete this tool routinely are needed.

EQ-5D Health Utility Scores: Data from a Comprehensive Canadian Cancer Centre.

BACKGROUND: To improve the precision of health economics analyses in oncology, reference datasets of health utility (HU) scores are needed from cancer survivors across different disease sites. These data are particularly sparse amongst Canadian survivors. METHODS: A survey was completed by 1759 ambulatory cancer survivors at the Princess Margaret Cancer Centre which contained demographic questions and the EuroQol-5D (EQ-5D) instrument. Clinical information was abstracted from electronic records and HU scores were calculated using Canadian health state valuations. Construct validity was assessed through correlation of HU and visual analog scale (VAS) scores (Spearman) and by comparing HU scores between performance status groups (effect size). The influence of socio-demographic clinical variables on HU was analyzed by non-parametric between-group comparisons and multiple linear regression. RESULTS: Mean EQ-5D HU scores were derived for 26 cancers. Among all survivors, the mean ± standard error of the mean EQ-5D utility score was 0.81 ± 0.004. Scores varied significantly by performance status (p < 0.0001) and correlated with VAS (Spearman r = 0.61). The cancer sites with the lowest mean HU scores were acute lymphoblastic leukemia (0.70 ± 0.03) and pancreatic cancer (0.76 ± 0.03); testicular cancer (0.89 ± 0.02) and chronic lymphocytic leukemia (0.90 ± 0.05) had the highest mean scores. A multiple regression model showed that scores were influenced by disease site (p < 0.001), education level (p < 0.001), partner status (p < 0.001), disease extent (p = 0.0029), and type of most recent treatment (p = 0.0061). CONCLUSIONS: This work represents the first set of HU scores for numerous cancer sites derived using Canadian preference weights. The dataset demonstrated construct validity and HU scores varied by general socio-demographic and clinical parameters.