Towards Equal Access to Cytoreductive Surgery with Hyperthermic Intraperitoneal Chemotherapy and Survival in Patients with Isolated Colorectal Peritoneal Metastases: A Nationwide Population-Based Study.

BACKGROUND: Before 2016, patients with isolated synchronous colorectal peritoneal metastases (PMCRC) diagnosed in expert centers had a higher odds of undergoing cytoreductive surgery with hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (CRS-HIPEC) and better overall survival (OS) than those diagnosed in referring centers. Nationwide efforts were initiated to increase awareness and improve referral networks. METHODS: This nationwide study aimed to evaluate whether the between-center differences in odds of undergoing CRS-HIPEC and OS have reduced since these national efforts were initiated. All patients with isolated synchronous PMCRC diagnosed between 2009 and 2021 were identified from the Netherlands Cancer Registry. Associations between hospital of diagnosis and the odds of undergoing CRS-HIPEC, as well as OS, were assessed using multilevel multivariable regression analyses for two periods (2009-2015 and 2016-2021). RESULTS: In total, 3948 patients were included. The percentage of patients undergoing CRS-HIPEC increased from 17.2% in 2009-2015 (25.4% in expert centers, 16.5% in referring centers), to 23.4% in 2016-2021 (30.2% in expert centers, 22.6% in referring centers). In 2009-2015, compared with diagnosis in a referring center, diagnosis in a HIPEC center showed a higher odds of undergoing CRS-HIPEC (odds ratio [OR] 1.64, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.02-2.67) and better survival (hazard ratio [HR] 0.80, 95% CI 0.66-0.96). In 2016-2021, there were no differences in the odds of undergoing CRS-HIPEC between patients diagnosed in HIPEC centers versus referring centers (OR 1.27, 95% CI 0.76-2.13) and survival (HR 1.00, 95% CI 0.76-1.32). CONCLUSION: Previously observed differences in odds of undergoing CRS-HIPEC were no longer present. Increased awareness and the harmonization of treatment for PMCRC may have contributed to equal access to care and a similar chance of survival at a national level.

The impact of a multi-hospital network on the inequality in odds of receiving resection or ablation for synchronous colorectal liver metastases.

BACKGROUND: This study investigates whether inequalities in the utilization of resection and/or ablation for synchronous colorectal liver metastases (SCLM) between patients diagnosed in expert and non-expert hospitals changed since a multi-hospital network started. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients diagnosed with SCLM between 2009 and 2020 were included. The likelihood of receiving ablation and/or resection was analyzed in the prenetwork (2009-2012), startup (2013-2016), and matured-network (2017-2020) periods. RESULTS: Nationwide, 13.981patients were diagnosed between 2009 and 2020, of whom 1.624 were diagnosed in the network. Of patients diagnosed in the network's expert hospitals, 36.7% received ablation and/or resection versus 28.3% in nonexpert hospitals (p < 0.01). The odds ratio (OR) of receiving ablation and/or resection for patients diagnosed in expert versus nonexpert hospitals increased from 1.38 (p = 0.581, pre-network), to 1.66 (p = 0.108, startup), to 2.48 (p = 0.090, matured-network). Nationwide, the same trend occurred (respectively OR 1.41, p = 0.011; OR 2.23, p < 0.001; OR 3.20, p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Patients diagnosed in expert hospitals were more likely to receive ablation and/or resection for SCLM than patients diagnosed in non-expert hospitals. This difference increased over time despite the startup of a multi-hospital network. Establishing a multi-hospital network did not have an effect on reducing the existing unequal odds of receiving specialized treatment. SYNOPSIS: Specialized oncology treatments are increasingly provided through multi-hospital networks. However, scant empirical evidence on the effectiveness of these networks exists. This study analyzes whether a regional multi-hospital network was able to improve equal access to specialized oncology treatments.

Additional preconditioning program for bariatric surgery: Any benefits? A large cohort study.

Postbariatric outcomes may improve by providing an additional preconditioning program (APP) in targeted patients. However, APPs are a demand for health resources while only little and inconsistent evidence consists to support their effectiveness. This cohort study aims to evaluate the effectiveness of APP, by comparing outcomes of patients with and without such APP. We carried out a retrospective single-centre cohort study in a before-after design. Patients signing up for primary gastric bypass or sleeve gastrectomy and eligible for surgery were included if screened as vulnerable patients. Vulnerable patients screened between September 2017 and March 2018 followed an APP and formed the APP-group. Due to a policy change, APPs were no longer performed since September 2018. Vulnerable patients screened between September 2018 and March 2019 thus did not receive an APP (comparator-group). Multidisciplinary follow-up remained unchanged. Endpoints included percentage total weight loss (%TWL), bodyweight, evolution of comorbidities, protein intake, and number of no-shows. The APP-group comprised 231 patients and the comparator-group 153. %TWL differed statistically significantly at 7 (Δ1.5%, p = .01) and 12 months postoperative (Δ2.8%, p < .01) in favour of the comparator-group, as did bodyweight 12 months postoperative (Δ1.8 kg, p < .01). Statistically significant differences were also found in the evolution of comorbidities, protein intake, and the number of no-shows, most in favour for the comparator-group. APP proofed not to be superior to Non-App. It is debatable whether statically significant differences are clinically relevant given their small magnitude. A care pathway without an APP seems at least as effective as a care pathway without.