RESUMO
Introduction: Low-dose computed tomography screening (LDCT) and lung nodule programs (LNP) promote early lung cancer detection, improve survival; Multidisciplinary Care Programs (MDC) promote guideline-concordant care. The impact of such program-based care on "real-world" lung cancer survival is unquantified. We evaluated outcomes of lung cancer care delivered through structured programs in a community health care system. Methods: We conducted a cohort study linking institutional prospective observational LDCT, LNP and MDC databases with Tumor Registry of Baptist Cancer Center facilities. We categorized all patients diagnosed with lung cancer between 2011 and 2021 into program-based care versus non-program-based care cohorts. We compared patient characteristics, stage distribution, treatment modalities, survival and mortality in each pathway of care. Results: Of 12,148 patients, 237, 1,165, 1,140 and 9,606 were diagnosed through the LDCT, LNP, MDC or no program, respectively; non-program-based care sequentially diminished from 96.3% to 66.5%, diagnosis through LDCT increased from 0.5% to 7.1%, LNP from 3.5% to 20.8%; and MDC alone decreased from a high of 12.8% in 2014 to 5.6% in 2021. Program-based care was associated with earlier stage (p < 0.001), higher surgical resection rates (p < 0.001), greater use of adjuvant therapy (p < 0.001), better aggregate and stage-stratified survival (p < 0.001), and lower all-cause and lung cancer-specific mortality (p < 0.001). Recipients of non-program-based care were considerably less likely to receive lung cancer treatment; results remained consistent when patients receiving no treatment were excluded. Conclusions: Program-based care was associated with substantially better survival. Increasing access to program-based care should be explored as a matter of urgent public policy.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Incisional hernia is a common complication following abdominal surgery. Although the use of prosthetics has decreased recurrence rates, the standard open approach is still unsatisfactory. Laparoscopic techniques are an attempt to provide similar outcomes with the advantages of minimally invasive surgery. METHODS: Open randomized controlled clinical trial with follow-up at 1, 2, 3, 7, and 15 days, and 1, 3, and 12 months from hernia repair. The study was carried out in the surgery departments of three general hospitals of the Valencia Health Agency. OBJECTIVES: To compare laparoscopic with anterior open repair using health-related quality of life outcomes as main endpoints. RESULTS: Eighty-four patients with incisional hernia were randomly allocated to an open group (OG) (n = 39) or to a laparoscopic group (LG) (n = 45). Seventy-four patients completed 1-year follow up. Mean length of stay and time to oral intake were similar between groups. Operative time was 32 min longer in the LG (p < 0.001). Conversion rate was 11%. The local complication rate was superior in the LG (33.3% versus 5.2%) (p < 0.001). Recurrence rate at 1 year (7.9% versus 9.7%) was similar in the two groups. There were no significant differences in the pain scores or the EQ5D tariffs between the two groups during follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: Laparoscopic incisional hernia repair does not seem to be a better procedure than the open anterior technique in terms of operative time, hospitalization, complications, pain or quality of life.