RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Healthcare is a highly polluting industry and attention to the need for making this sector more sustainable is growing. The interventional radiology (IR) department is a relatively unique department in the hospital because of its synergetic use of both imaging equipment and medical instruments. As a result, the interventional radiology department causes a significant environmental burden in terms of energy usage, waste and water pollution. The aim of this study was to explore the current state of sustainability within IR by conducting a survey and interviews among IR specialists in the Netherlands. RESULTS: The main findings of this study were that there is a high awareness for the need of sustainability within IR, but that there is still limited action. Previous studies point towards the various opportunities in the field of energy, waste and water pollution, yet our study unveils these opportunities are often not implemented because of (1) sustainability not being a priority, (2) a dependency on employees, and (3) factors that simply cannot be changed by an individual IR department or hospital. Generally, our study indicates that there is a willingness to become more sustainable, but that the current system involves a wide range barriers that hinder true change. Furthermore, it seems that no one is currently taking the lead and a leading role from higher management, government, healthcare authorities or professional societies is lacking. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the hurdles found in our study, IR departments can implement several improvements. An important factor is that sustainability should not lead to lower convenience for employees, which can be ensured by a sufficiently designed waste infrastructure and behavioral nudges. Furthermore, there lies an opportunity in more collaboration between IR departments in knowledge sharing and open innovation.
RESUMO
The guidelines for metastatic colorectal cancer crudely state that the best local treatment should be selected from a 'toolbox' of techniques according to patient- and treatment-related factors. We created an interdisciplinary, consensus-based algorithm with specific resectability and ablatability criteria for the treatment of colorectal liver metastases (CRLM). To pursue consensus, members of the multidisciplinary COLLISION and COLDFIRE trial expert panel employed the RAND appropriateness method (RAM). Statements regarding patient, disease, tumor and treatment characteristics were categorized as appropriate, equipoise or inappropriate. Patients with ECOG≤2, ASA≤3 and Charlson comorbidity index ≤8 should be considered fit for curative-intent local therapy. When easily resectable and/or ablatable (stage IVa), (neo)adjuvant systemic therapy is not indicated. When requiring major hepatectomy (stage IVb), neo-adjuvant systemic therapy is appropriate for early metachronous disease and to reduce procedural risk. To downstage patients (stage IVc), downsizing induction systemic therapy and/or future remnant augmentation is advised. Disease can only be deemed permanently unsuitable for local therapy if downstaging failed (stage IVd). Liver resection remains the gold standard. Thermal ablation is reserved for unresectable CRLM, deep-seated resectable CRLM and can be considered when patients are in poor health. Irreversible electroporation and stereotactic body radiotherapy can be considered for unresectable perihilar and perivascular CRLM 0-5cm. This consensus document provides per-patient and per-tumor resectability and ablatability criteria for the treatment of CRLM. These criteria are intended to aid tumor board discussions, improve consistency when designing prospective trials and advance intersociety communications. Areas where consensus is lacking warrant future comparative studies.
