Symptoms and seeking supportive care and associations with quality of life after treatment for colon cancer: Results from the I CARE cohort study.

OBJECTIVE: Patients treated for colon cancer report many symptoms that affect quality of life (QoL). Survivorship care aims at QoL improvement. In this study, we assess associations between symptoms and seeking supportive care and lower QoL and QoL changes overtime during survivorship care. METHODS: A prospective cohort of colon cancer survivors. Questionnaires are administered at inclusion and 6 months later to evaluate symptoms, functioning and seeking supportive care including associations with QoL, using the EORTC QLQ-C30. RESULTS: The mean QoL score at the first questionnaire was 82 (scale 1-100), which improved over time. Pain, bowel symptoms and problems in physical, role, cognitive or social functioning are associated with lower QoL at inclusion but are not associated with QoL changes over time. Seeking support for lower bowel symptoms, physical functioning or fatigue is associated with lower QoL. After 6 months, seeking support for upper bowel symptoms or physical functioning is associated with a tendency towards less QoL improvement. CONCLUSION: QoL of colon cancer survivors improves over 6 months, but seeking support for specific symptoms barely contribute to this improvement. IMPLICATIONS: This study confirms the importance of addressing symptoms, problems related to functioning and seeking supportive care during survivorship care.

Effect of general practitioner-led versus surgeon-led colon cancer survivorship care, with or without eHealth support, on quality of life (I CARE): an interim analysis of 1-year results of a randomised, controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Colon cancer is associated with an increased risk of physical and psychosocial morbidity, even after treatment. General practitioner (GP) care could be beneficial to help to reduce this morbidity. We aimed to assess quality of life (QOL) in patients who received GP-led survivorship care after treatment for colon cancer compared with those who received surgeon-led care. Furthermore, the effect of an eHealth app (Oncokompas) on QOL was assessed in both patient groups. METHODS: We did a pragmatic two-by-two factorial, open-label, randomised, controlled trial at eight hospitals in the Netherlands. Eligible patients were receiving primary surgical treatment for stage I-III colon cancer or rectosigmoid carcinoma and qualified for routine follow-up according to Dutch national guidelines. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1:1:1)-via computer-generated variable block randomisation stratified by age and tumour stage-to survivorship care overseen by a surgeon, survivorship care overseen by a surgeon with access to Oncokompas, survivorship care overseen by a GP, or survivorship care overseen by a GP with access to Oncokompas. Blinding of the trial was not possible. The primary endpoint of the trial was QOL at 5 years, as measured by the change from baseline in the European Organistion for Research and Treatment of Cancer QLQ-C30 summary score. Here, we report an unplanned interim analysis of QOL at the 12-month follow-up. Grouped comparisons were done (ie, both GP-led care groups were compared with both surgeon-led groups, and both Oncokompas groups were compared with both no Oncokompas groups). Differences in change of QOL between trial groups were estimated with linear mixed-effects models. A change of ten units was considered clinically meaningful. Analysis was by intention to treat. This trial is registered with the Netherlands Trial Register, NTR4860. FINDINGS: Between March 26, 2015, and Nov 21, 2018, 353 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned. There were 50 early withdrawals (27 patient decisions and 23 GP withdrawals). Of the remaining 303 participants, 79 were assigned to surgeon-led care, 83 to surgeon-led care with Oncokompas, 73 to GP-led care, and 68 to GP-led care with Oncokompas. Median follow-up was 12·2 months (IQR 12·0-13·0) in all groups. At baseline, QOL was high in all trial groups. At 12 months, there was no clinically meaningful difference in change from baseline in QOL between the GP-led care groups and the surgeon-led care groups (difference in summary score -2·3 [95% CI -5·0 to 0·4]) or between the Oncokompas and no Oncokompas groups (-0·1 [-2·8 to 2·6]). INTERPRETATION: In terms of QOL, GP-led survivorship care can be considered as an alternative to surgeon-led care within the first year after colon cancer treatment. Other outcomes, including patient and physician preferences, will be important for decisions about the type of survivorship care. FUNDING: Dutch Cancer Society (KWF).

Preventing unwanted situations and gaining trust: a qualitative study of older people and families' experiences with advance care planning in the daily practice of primary care.

BACKGROUND: Using advance care planning (ACP) to anticipate future decisions can increase compliance with people's end-of-life wishes, decrease inappropriate life-sustaining treatment and reduce stress, anxiety and depression. Despite this, only a minority of older people engage in ACP, partly because care professionals lack knowledge of approaches towards ACP with older people and their families. OBJECTIVE: To explore older people's and their families' experiences with ACP in primary care. METHODS: We conducted qualitative, semi-structured, face-to-face interviews with 22 older people (aged >70 years, v/m: 11/11), with experience in ACP, and eight of their family members (aged 40-79 years, f/m: 7/1). Transcripts were inductively analysed using a grounded theory approach. RESULTS: We distinguished three main themes. (i) Openness and trust: Respondents were more open to ACP if they wanted to prevent specific future situations and less open if they lacked trust or had negative thoughts regarding general practitioners' (GPs') time for and interest in ACP. Engaging in ACP appeared to increase trust. (ii) Timing and topics: ACP was not initiated too early. Quality of ACP seemed to improve if respondents' views on their current life and future, a few specific future care scenarios and expectations and responsibilities regarding ACP were discussed. (iii) Roles of family: Quality of ACP appeared to improve if family was involved in ACP. CONCLUSIONS: Quality and accessibility of ACP may improve if GPs and nurses involve family, explain GPs' interest in ACP and discuss future situations older people may want to prevent, and views on their current life and future.

How do Dutch primary care providers overcome barriers to advance care planning with older people? A qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Few older people benefit from advance care planning (ACP), due to several barriers related to primary care professionals, such as insufficient knowledge, negative beliefs and a lack of time. Information on overcoming these barriers is limited. We assumed primary care professionals experienced in ACP with older patients are likely to have learned how to overcome these barriers. OBJECTIVE: To investigate how Dutch primary care professionals experienced in ACP with older patients overcome these barriers. METHODS: A qualitative study, based on semi-structured interviews, among a purposive sample of 14 Dutch primary care professionals experienced in ACP with older people. Transcripts were thematically analysed. RESULTS: We interviewed eight general practitioners (GPs), three nurses and three elderly care physicians, experienced in ACP with older people. Respondents overcame their own insufficient knowledge and skills, as well as their negative attitudes and beliefs by gaining experience through practicing ACP in their daily practices, exchanging and reflecting on those experiences with peers, pursuing continuing education, teaching and participating in research. To overcome patients' and families' lack of initiative and openness to ACP, respondents prepared them for further steps in ACP. To overcome a lack of time, respondents used tools and information communication technology, delegated parts of ACP to other primary care professionals, acquired financing and systematized documentation of ACP. CONCLUSION: Primary care professionals can overcome barriers to ACP with older patients by practicing, reflecting on experiences and pursuing continuing education, by preparing patients and involving family and by investing in support to approach ACP more efficiently.

General practitioners' involvement during survivorship care of colon cancer in the Netherlands: primary health care utilization during survivorship care of colon cancer, a prospective multicentre cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Primary health care use increases when cancer is diagnosed. This increase continues after cancer treatment. More generalist care is suggested to improve survivorship care. It is unknown to what extent cancer-related symptoms are currently presented in primary care in this survivorship phase. OBJECTIVE: To analyse primary health care utilization of colon cancer patients during and after treatment with curative intent. METHODS: In a prospective multicentre cohort study among patients with curatively treated colon cancer, we describe the primary health care utilization during the first 5 years of follow-up. Data were collected at general practitioner (GP) practices during 6 months. RESULTS: Of 183 included participants, 153 (84%) consulted their GP resulting in 606 contacts (mean 3.3, standard deviation 3.01) with on average 0.9 contact for colon-cancer-related (CCR) problems in the 6-month study period. Median time after surgery at inclusion was 7.6 months (range 0-58). Abdominal pain and chemotherapy-related problems were the most frequently reported CCR reasons. Of the CCR contacts, 83% was managed in primary care. As time after surgery passed, the number of CCR contacts declined in patients without chemotherapy and remained constant in patients who received chemotherapy. CONCLUSION: Colon cancer survivors contact their GP frequently also for reasons related to cancer. Currently, a formal role for GPs in survivorship care is lacking, but nevertheless GPs provide a substantial amount of care. Working agreements between primary and secondary care are necessary to formalize the GP's role in order to improve the quality of survivorship care.

Introducing a time out consultation with the general practitioner between diagnosis and start of colorectal cancer treatment: Patient-reported outcomes.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the introduction of a "time out consultation" with the general practitioner (GP) recommended to patients following the diagnosis of colorectal carcinoma (CRC) before start of treatment. METHODS: A prospective study using questionnaires to compare the number of GP consultations, with their content and outcomes before and after the introduction of an additional consultation with the GP to improve decision-making and adequate support. RESULTS: 72 patients before and 98 patients after the introduction of the "time out consultation" participated. Introduction of the consultation increased the number of patients to contact their GP from 67% to 80%, but did not change kind or content of the consultations. Patients felt the consultation was comforting and were more satisfied with the GP after the introduction. There was no difference in outcomes measured by the questionnaires in all patients combined, but men, older patients and patients with palliative treatment options only did improve on specific outcomes after the introduction. CONCLUSION: The introduction of the "time out consultation" did not change the kind or content of GP consultations before start of CRC treatment, but patients did feel more comforted and satisfied. Subgroups of patients benefited on specific outcomes.

Clinical Pattern of Recurrent Disease during the Follow-Up of Rectal Carcinoma.

BACKGROUND/AIMS: Several initiatives have started to transfer colorectal cancer follow-up (FU) from secondary to primary care. For this purpose, it is important to assess when and how recurrences of rectal carcinoma are detected after treatment with curative intent. METHODS: Retrospective multicentre cohort study. Patients participating in an FU programme after curative intended treatment for rectal cancer stages I-III between 2007 and 2014. RESULTS: Of the 378 patients, 64 (17%) developed recurrent disease (RD). Most were detected during scheduled FU consultations (n = 55) by (a combination of) radiological examinations and carcinoembryonic antigen levels, and were asymptomatic (n = 53); outside scheduled FU consultations, RD was detected during the treatment of postoperative complications or ostomy reversal (n = 5), or due to symptoms (n = 4). Most frequent sites of recurrence were liver (50%), lung (44%), multiple (22%) or locoregional (16%). Treatment of RD with curative intent was performed more frequently when detected during scheduled FU (60 vs. 22%). The only predictive factor for developing RD was stage III disease on initial presentation. CONCLUSIONS: The majority of rectal cancer patients are diagnosed with RD at an asymptomatic stage during scheduled FU consultations. Only a few patients presented with RD outside the FU programme. Arguably, general practitioners could order these same diagnostic tests during FU.

Who should provide care for patients receiving palliative chemotherapy? A qualitative study among Dutch general practitioners and oncologists.

INTRODUCTION: While close collaboration between general practitioners (GPs) and hospital specialists is considered important, the sharing of care responsibilities between GPs and oncologists during palliative chemotherapy has not been clearly defined. OBJECTIVE: Evaluate the opinions of GPs and oncologists about who should provide different aspects of care for patients receiving palliative chemotherapy. DESIGN: We conducted semi-structured interviews using six hypothetical scenarios with purposively sampled GPs (n = 12) and oncologists (n = 10) in the Netherlands. Each represented an example of a clinical problem requiring different aspects of care: problems likely, or not, related to cancer or chemotherapy, need for decision support, and end-of-life care. RESULTS: GPs and oncologists agreed that GPs should provide end-of-life care and that they should be involved in decisions about palliative chemotherapy; however, for the other scenarios most participants considered themselves the most appropriate provider of care. Themes that emerged regarding who would provide the best care for the patients in the different scenarios were expertise, continuity of care, accessibility of care, doctor-patient relationship, and communication. Most participants mentioned improved communication between the GP and oncologist as being essential for a better coordination and quality of care. CONCLUSION: GPs and oncologists have different opinions about who should ideally provide different aspects of care during palliative chemotherapy. Findings raise awareness of the differences in reasoning and approaches and in current communication deficits between the two groups of health professionals. These findings could be used to improve coordination and collaboration and, ultimately, better patient care as results demonstrated that both disciplines can add value to the care for patients with advanced cancer. Key points This study identified contrasting opinions of GPs and oncologists about who should provide different aspects of care for patients receiving palliative chemotherapy. Important themes that emerged were expertise, continuity of care, doctor-patient relations, accessibility of care, and communication. Although frequently using the same arguments, GPs and oncologists often considered themselves to be the most appropriate providers of palliative care.

Need for general practitioner involvement and eHealth in colon cancer survivorship care: patients' perspectives.

Background: As colon cancer is increasingly becoming a chronic illness with a broad range of symptoms, there is a need for individually tailored care for these patients. Objective: To investigate patients' opinions about GP involvement in survivorship care and the use of eHealth applications, such as Oncokompas2.0, to support self-management. Oncokompas2.0 is an interactive website that monitors quality of life via participant-reported outcomes and provides feedback and personalized supportive care. Methods: We conducted a qualitative study using semi-structured interviews with patients diagnosed with stages I-III colon cancer treated with curative intent. Twenty participants (nine men, age range 49-86 years) were recruited in five Dutch hospitals by purposive sampling. Thematic data analysis was done by two coders. Results: Possible benefits of greater GP involvement include better accessibility of care and additional guidance. Participants considered an increased workload for the already busy GP as a disadvantage. Requirements for greater GP involvement were assurance of sufficient knowledge and expertise of the GP and easy access to secondary care. Most participants expected that Oncokompas2.0 would increase awareness of symptoms and concerns and provide more insight into support possibilities. Reservations mentioned were the expected loss of personal contact with health professionals and the feasibility of implementation in the total patient population. Conclusion: Colon cancer patients see some benefit of greater GP involvement and the use of Oncokompas2.0 to improve survivorship care. Our study results support initiatives to further explore GP-led survivorship care and the implementation of eHealth.

Symptomatic and Asymptomatic Colon Cancer Recurrence: A Multicenter Cohort Study.

PURPOSE: Follow-up after colorectal cancer treatment with curative intent aims to detect recurrences and metachronous tumors in a timely manner. The objective of this study is to assess how recurrent disease presents and is diagnosed within scheduled follow-up according to the national guideline for the Netherlands. METHODS: In a retrospective study of consecutive patients with colorectal cancer who were treated in 2 hospitals in the Netherlands, we identified patients with colon cancer who underwent surgery with curative intent between January 2007 and December 2012. Patients who developed recurrent disease were included for further analyses. RESULTS: From a total of 446 patients who were been treated for colon carcinoma with curative intent, 74 developed recurrent disease (17%). In 43 of those patients (58%), recurrent disease was detected during a scheduled follow-up visit, with 41 (95%) being asymptomatic. Tumor marker testing, imaging, and colonoscopy identified all of these recurrences. In the remaining 31 patients with recurrent disease (42%), recurrence was found during non-scheduled interval visits; 26 (84%) of these patients were symptomatic. The most prevalent symptoms were abdominal pain, altered defecation, and weight loss. Patients with asymptomatic recurrences had a significantly higher overall survival compared with patients with symptomatic recurrences. CONCLUSIONS: In this cohort, 42% of the recurrences after initial curative treatment for colon cancer were found during non-scheduled interval visits, mainly based on symptoms. Primary care physicians who take care of patients whose colon cancer might recur should be aware of the relatively high rate of symptomatic recurrences and of typical presenting symptoms.

Detection of colon cancer recurrences during follow-up care by general practitioners vs surgeons.

BACKGROUND: In the I CARE study, colon cancer patients were randomly assigned to receive follow-up care from either a general practitioner (GP) or a surgeon. Here, we address a secondary outcome, namely, detection of recurrences and effect on time to detection of transferring care from surgeon to GP. METHODS: Pattern, stage, and treatment of recurrences were described after 3 years. Time to event was defined as date of surgery, until date of recurrence or last follow-up, with death as competing event. Effects on time to recurrence and death were estimated as hazard ratios (HRs) using Cox regression. Restricted mean survival times were estimated. RESULTS: Of 303 patients, 141 were randomly assigned to the GP and 162 to the surgeon. Patients were male (67%) with a mean age of 68.0 (8.4) years. During follow-up, 46 recurrences were detected; 18 (13%) in the GP vs 28 (17%) in the surgeon group. Most recurrences were detected via abnormal follow-up tests (74%) and treated with curative intent (59%). Hazard ratio for recurrence was 0.75 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.41 to 1.36) in GP vs surgeon group. Patients in the GP group remained in the disease-free state slightly longer (2.76 vs 2.71 years). Of the patients, 38 died during follow-up; 15 (11%) in the GP vs 23 (14%) in the surgeon group. Of these, 21 (55%) deaths were related to colon cancer. There were no differences in overall deaths between the groups (HR = 0.76, 95% CI = 0.39 to 1.46). CONCLUSION: Follow-up provided by GPs vs surgeons leads to similar detection of recurrences. Also, no differences in mortality were found.

Cost-effectiveness of general practitioner- versus surgeon-led colon cancer survivorship care: an economic evaluation alongside a randomised controlled trial.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study is to assess cost-effectiveness of general practitioner (GP) versus surgeon-led colon cancer survivorship care from a societal perspective. METHODS: We performed an economic evaluation alongside the I CARE study, which included 303 cancer patients (stages I-III) who were randomised to survivorship care by a GP or surgeon. Questionnaires were administered at baseline, 3-, 6-, 12-, 24- and 36-months. Costs included healthcare costs (measured by iMTA MCQ) and lost productivity costs (SF-HLQ). Disease-specific quality of life (QoL) was measured using EORTC QLQ-C30 summary score and general QoL using EQ-5D-3L quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Missing data were imputed. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were calculated to relate costs to effects on QoL. Statistical uncertainty was estimated using bootstrapping. RESULTS: Total societal costs of GP-led care were significantly lower compared to surgeon-led care (mean difference of - €3895; 95% CI - €6113; - €1712). Lost productivity was the main contributor to the difference in societal costs (- €3305; 95% CI - €5028; - €1739). The difference in QLQ-C30 summary score over time between groups was 1.33 (95% CI - 0.049; 3.15). The ICER for QLQ-C30 was - 2073, indicating that GP-led care is dominant over surgeon-led care. The difference in QALYs was - 0.021 (95% CI - 0.083; 0.040) resulting in an ICER of 129,164. CONCLUSIONS: GP-led care is likely to be cost-effective for disease-specific QoL, but not for general QoL. IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS: With a growing number of cancer survivors, GP-led survivorship care could help to alleviate some of the burden on more expensive secondary healthcare services.

Role of GPs in shared decision making with patients about palliative cancer treatment: a qualitative study in the Netherlands.

BACKGROUND: GPs are well placed to enhance shared decision making (SDM) about treatment for patients with advanced cancer. However, to date, little is known about GPs' views about their contribution to SDM. AIM: To explore GPs' perspectives on their role in SDM about palliative cancer treatment and the requirements they report to fulfil this role. DESIGN AND SETTING: Qualitative interview study among Dutch GPs. METHOD: GPs were sampled purposefully and conveniently. In-depth, semi-structured interviews were conducted, recorded, and transcribed verbatim. Transcripts were analysed by thematic analysis. RESULTS: Fifteen GPs took part in this study. Most of them reported practices that potentially support SDM: checking the quality of a decision, complementing SDM, and enabling SDM. Even though most of the GPs believed that decision making about systemic cancer treatment is primarily the oncologist's responsibility, they did recognise their added value in the SDM process because of their gatekeeper position, the additional opportunity they offer patients to discuss treatment decisions, and their knowledge and experience as primary healthcare providers at the end of life. Requirements for them to support the SDM process were described as: good collaboration with oncologists; sufficient information about the disease and its treatment; time to engage in conversations about treatment; a trusting relationship with patients; and patient-centred communication. CONCLUSION: GPs may support SDM by checking the quality of a decision and by complementing and enabling the SDM process to reach high-quality decisions. This conceptualisation of the GP's supporting role in SDM may help us to understand how SDM is carried out through interprofessional collaboration and provide tools for how to adopt a role in the interprofessional SDM process.

Laparoscopy in combination with fast track multimodal management is the best perioperative strategy in patients undergoing colonic surgery: a randomized clinical trial (LAFA-study).

OBJECTIVE: To investigate which perioperative treatment, ie, laparoscopic or open surgery combined with fast track (FT) or standard care, is the optimal approach for patients undergoing segmental resection for colon cancer. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: Important developments in elective colorectal surgery are the introduction of laparoscopy and implementation of FT care, both focusing on faster recovery. METHODS: In a 9-center trial, patients eligible for segmental colectomy were randomized to laparoscopic or open colectomy, and to FT or standard care, resulting in 4 treatment groups. Primary outcome was total postoperative hospital stay (THS). Secondary outcomes were postoperative hospital stay (PHS), morbidity, reoperation rate, readmission rate, in-hospital mortality, quality of life at 2 and 4 weeks, patient satisfaction and in-hospital costs. Four hundred patients were required to find a minimum difference of 1 day in hospital stay. RESULTS: Median THS in the laparoscopic/FT group was 5 (interquar-tile range: 4-8) days; open/FT 7 (5-11) days; laparoscopic/standard 6 (4.5-9.5) days, and open/standard 7 (6-13) days (P < 0.001). Median PHS in the laparoscopic/FT group was 5 (4-7) days; open/FT 6 (4.5-10) days; laparoscopic/standard 6 (4-8.5) days and open/standard 7 (6-10.5) days (P < 0.001). Secondary outcomes did not differ significantly among the groups. Regression analysis showed that laparoscopy was the only independent predictive factor to reduce hospital stay and morbidity. CONCLUSIONS: Optimal perioperative treatment for patients requiring segmental colectomy for colon cancer is laparoscopic resection embedded in a FT program. If open surgery is applied, it is preferentially done in FT care. This study was registered under NTR222 (www.trialregister.nl).

Recruitment challenges to the I CARE study: a randomised trial on general practitioner-led colon cancer survivorship care.

OBJECTIVES: The I CARE study (Improving Care After colon canceR treatment in the Netherlands) aims to compare surgeon-led to general practitioner (GP)-led colon cancer survivorship care. Recruitment to the trial took longer than expected. In this descriptive study, recruitment is critically reviewed. SETTING: Patients were recruited from eight Dutch medical centres. PARTICIPANTS: Patients treated with curative intent for stages I-III colon cancer. Target patient sample size was calculated at 300. INTERVENTIONS: Patients were randomised to surgeon-led (usual) versus GP-led care, with or without access to an eHealth application (Oncokompas). OUTCOME MEASURES: Baseline characteristics of (non-)participants, reasons for non-participation and strategies to improve recruitment were reviewed. RESULTS: Out of 1238 eligible patients, 353 patients were included. Of these, 50 patients dropped out shortly after randomisation and before start of the intervention, resulting in a participation rate of 25%. Participants were on average slightly younger (68.1 years vs 69.3 years) and more often male (67% vs 50%) in comparison to non-participants. A total of 806 patients declined participation for reasons most often relating to research (57%), including the wish to remain in specialist care (31%) and too much effort to participate (12%). Some patients mentioned health (9%) and confrontation with the disease (5%) as a reason. In 43 cases, GPs declined participation, often related to the study objective, need for financial compensation and time restraints. The generally low participation rate led to concerns about reaching the target sample size. Methods to overcome recruitment challenges included changes to the original recruitment procedure and the addition of new study centres. CONCLUSIONS: Challenges were faced in the recruitment to a randomised trial on GP-led colon cancer survivorship care. Research on the transition of care requires sufficient time, funding and support base among patients and healthcare professionals. These findings will help inform researchers and policy-makers on the development of future practices. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NTR4860.

Nanometric thin film membranes manufactured on square meter scale: ultra-thin films for CO2 capture.

Miniaturization and manipulation of materials at nanometer scale are key challenges in nanoscience and nanotechnology. In membrane science and technology, the fabrication of ultra-thin polymer films (defect-free) on square meter scale with uniform thickness (<100 nm) is crucial. By using a tailor-made polymer and by controlling the nanofabrication conditions, we developed and manufactured defect-free ultra-thin film membranes with unmatched carbon dioxide permeances, i.e. > 5 m(3) (STP) m(-2) h(-1) bar(-1). The permeances are extremely high, because the membranes are made from a CO(2) philic polymer material and they are only a few tens of nanometers thin. Thus, these thin film membranes have potential application in the treatment of large gas streams under low pressure like, e.g., carbon dioxide separation from flue gas.

Feasibility of laparoscopic Nissen fundoplication as a day-case procedure.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this prospective double-cohort pilot study is to evaluate the feasibility and desirability of laparoscopic Nissen fundoplication (LNF) performed in day-care when compared with laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) in day-care. METHODS: Patients who underwent a LNF in day-care were prospectively evaluated. LNF patients were treated according to LC in day-care protocol. Outcome parameters were EQ-5D, visual analogue scale (VAS), and patient satisfaction. RESULTS: From October 2005 to March 2008, 22 patients underwent LNF and 48 patients LC in day-care. After LNF, 21 out of 22 (95%) patients were discharged the same day. Seven (32%) patients were seen postoperatively in the Emergency Department with dysphagia or pain and two (9%) patients were readmitted. After LC, 45 out of 48 (94%) patients were discharged the same day. Six (12.5%) patients were seen postoperatively in the Emergency Department because of wound infection or pain and three (6%) were readmitted. EQ-5D and VAS scores were significantly worse after LNF in day-care (repeated measurements, p < 0.0001 and p < 0.0001). In a telephone survey 66.7% preferred a short hospital stay over day-care surgery after LNF compared with 30.9% after LC (p = 0.011). CONCLUSIONS: LNF in day-care is feasible and safe, but postoperative pain scores are high and most prefer short hospital stay.

Characteristics of Gas Permeation Behaviour in Multilayer Thin Film Composite Membranes for CO2 Separation.

Porous, porous/gutter layer and porous/gutter layer/selective layer types of membranes were investigated for their gas transport properties in order to derive an improved description of the transport performance of thin film composite membranes (TFCM). A model describing the individual contributions of the different layers' mass transfer resistances was developed. The proposed method allows for the prediction of permeation behaviour with standard deviations (SD) up to 10%. The porous support structures were described using the Dusty Gas Model (based on the Maxwell⁻Stefan multicomponent mass transfer approach) whilst the permeation in the dense gutter and separation layers was described by applicable models such as the Free-Volume model, using parameters derived from single gas time lag measurements. The model also accounts for the thermal expansion of the dense layers at pressure differences below 100 kPa. Using the model, the thickness of a silicone-based gutter layer was calculated from permeation measurements. The resulting value differed by a maximum of 30 nm to the thickness determined by scanning electron microscopy.

Long-term functional outcome and risk factors for recurrence after surgical treatment for low and high perianal fistulas of cryptoglandular origin.

PURPOSE: This study assessed long-term functional outcome and explored risk factors for fistula recurrence in patients surgically treated for cryptoglandular fistulas. METHODS: Three hundred ten consecutive patients were surgically treated for perianal fistulas. After exclusion of patients with inflammatory bowel disease or HIV, 179 patients remained. Patients were divided into two groups: those who received fistulotomy for low perianal fistulas and those who received rectal advancement flap for high perianal fistulas. Time to fistula recurrence was the main outcome and Cox proportional hazard models were used to assess the importance of various risk factors. Functional outcome was assessed using the Vaizey and colorectal functional outcome (COREFO) questionnaires. RESULTS: The median follow-up duration was 76 months (range, 7-134). The 3-year recurrence rate for low perianal fistulas treated by fistulotomy (n = 109) was 7 percent (95 percent confidence interval, 1-13 percent). In high transsphincteric fistulas treated by rectal advancement flap (n = 70), the recurrence rate was 21 percent (95 percent confidence interval, 9-33 percent). In both groups, soiling was reported at 40 percent. None of the seven potential risk factors examined were statistically significant. CONCLUSIONS: Fistula recurrence rate after fistulotomy was low. No clear risk factors were found. Overall functional outcome in terms of continence was good. However, a substantial amount of patients reported soiling.

Experiences of general practitioners participating in oncology meetings with specialists to support GP-led survivorship care; an interview study from the Netherlands.

BACKGROUND: Due to ageing, increasing cancer incidence and improved treatment, the number of survivors of cancer increases. To overcome the growing demand for hospital care survivorship by the involvement of the general practitioner (GP) has been suggested. Dutch GPs started a project to offer survivorship care to their patients with the help of monthly oncology meetings with hospital specialists. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the experiences of GPs with monthly oncology meetings in a GP-practice to support GP-led survivorship care of colon cancer patients. METHODS: This is a qualitative study in primary care centres in a region in the Netherlands around one hospital. GPs were recruited from practices organizing monthly oncology meetings with hospital specialists. Ten of 15 participating GPs were interviewed until saturation. The interviews were transcribed verbatim and two independent researchers analysed the data. RESULTS: The oncology meetings and individual care plans attributed to a feeling of shared responsibility for the patients by the GP and the specialist. The meetings helped the GPs to be informed about the patients in the diagnostic and treatment phase, which was followed by a clear moment of transfer from hospital to primary care. GPs were better equipped to treat comorbidity and were more confident in providing survivorship care. Due to lack of reimbursement for survivorship care, the internal motivation of the GP must high. CONCLUSION: The oncology meetings fulfil the need for information and communication. Close cooperation between GPs and oncology specialists appears to be an essential factor for GPs to value GP-led survivorship care positively.