Nationwide evaluation of pancreatic cancer networks ten years after the centralization of pancreatic surgery.

BACKGROUND: Due to centralization of pancreatic surgery, patients with pancreatic cancer are treated in pancreatic cancer networks, composed of referring hospitals (Spokes) and an expert center (Hub). This study aimed to investigate I) how pancreatic cancer networks are organized and II) evaluated by involved clinicians. METHODS: Two online surveys were sent out between January-May 2022. Part I was sent out to the surgical network directors of all hospitals of the Dutch Pancreatic Cancer Group (DPCG). Part II was sent out to all involved clinicians in the Hubs-and-Spokes networks. RESULTS: There was a large variety between the 15 networks concerning number of affiliated Spokes (1-7), annual pancreatoduodenectomies (20-129), and use of a service level agreement (SLA) (40%). More Spoke clinicians considered the Spoke the best location for diagnostic workup (74% vs 36%, P < 0.001). Only 30% of Spoke clinicians attended the Hubs multidisciplinary team meeting frequently. More Hub clinicians thought that exchange of patient information should be improved (37% vs 51%, P = 0.005). CONCLUSION: A large variety in Dutch pancreatic cancer networks was observed concerning number of affiliated Spokes, use of SLAs, and logistic aspects of network care. Improvement of network care concern agreements on diagnostic workup, use of SLA, Spoke participation in the MDT, and patient information exchange.

Effect of Digital Care Platforms on Quality of Care for Oncological Patients and Barriers and Facilitators for Their Implementation: Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: Oncological health care services are challenged by the increasing number of cancer survivors, long-term follow-up care, and fragmentation of care. Digital care platforms are potential tools to deliver affordable, patient-centered oncological care. Previous reviews evaluated only one feature of a digital care platform or did not evaluate the effect on enhancement of information, self-efficacy, continuity of care, or patient- and health care provider-reported experiences. Additionally, they have not focused on the barriers and facilitators for implementation of a digital care platform in oncological care. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this systematic review was to collect the best available evidence of the effect of a digital care platform on quality of care parameters such as enhancement of available information, self-efficacy, continuity of care, and patient- and health care provider-reported experiences. Additionally, barriers and facilitators for implementation of digital care platforms were analyzed. METHODS: The PubMed (Medline), Embase, CINAHL, and Cochrane Library databases were searched for the period from January 2000 to May 2020 for studies assessing the effect of a digital care platform on the predefined outcome parameters in oncological patients and studies describing barriers and facilitators for implementation. Synthesis of the results was performed qualitatively. Barriers and facilitators were categorized according to the framework of Grol and Wensing. The Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool was used for critical appraisal of the studies. RESULTS: Seventeen studies were included for final analysis, comprising 8 clinical studies on the effectiveness of the digital care platform and 13 studies describing barriers and facilitators. Usage of a digital care platform appeared to enhance the availability of information and self-efficacy. There were no data available on the effect of a digital care platform on the continuity of care. However, based on focus group interviews, digital care platforms could potentially improve continuity of care by optimizing the exchange of patient information across institutes. Patient-reported experiences such as satisfaction with the platform were considerably positive. Most barriers for implementation were identified at the professional level, such as the concern for increased workload and unattended release of medical information to patients. Most facilitators were found at the patient and innovation levels, such as improved patient-doctor communication and patient empowerment. There were few barriers and facilitators mentioned at the economic and political levels. CONCLUSIONS: The use of digital care platforms is associated with better quality of care through enhancement of availability of information and increased self-efficacy for oncological patients. The numerous facilitators identified at the patient level illustrate that patients are positive toward a digital care platform. However, despite these favorable results, robust evidence concerning the effectiveness of digital care platforms, especially from high-quality studies, is still lacking. Future studies should therefore aim to further investigate the effectiveness of digital care platforms, and the barriers and facilitators to their implementation at the economic and political levels.

Impact of network treatment in patients with resected pancreatic cancer on use and timing of chemotherapy and survival.

BACKGROUND: Centralization of pancreatic cancer surgery aims to improve postoperative outcomes. Consequently, patients with pancreatic cancer may undergo pancreatic surgery in an expert centre and adjuvant chemotherapy in a local hospital (network treatment). The aim of this study was to assess whether network treatment has an impact on time to chemotherapy, failure to complete adjuvant chemotherapy, and survival. Second, whether these parameters varied between pancreatic networks was studied. METHODS: This retrospective study included all patients diagnosed with non-metastatic pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma who underwent pancreatic surgery and adjuvant chemotherapy, registered in the Netherlands Cancer Registry (2015-2020). Time to chemotherapy was defined as the time between surgery and the start of adjuvant chemotherapy. Completion of adjuvant chemotherapy was defined as the receipt of 12 cycles of FOLFIRINOX or six cycles of gemcitabine. Analysis was performed with linear mixed models and multilevel logistic regression models. Cox regression analyses were performed for survival. RESULTS: In total, 1074 patients were included. Network treatment was observed in 468 patients (43.6 per cent) and was not associated with longer time to chemotherapy (0.77 days, standard error (s.e.) 1.14, P = 0.501), failure to complete adjuvant chemotherapy (odds ratio (OR) = 1.140, 95 per cent c.i. 0.86 to 1.52, P = 0.349), and overall survival (hazards ratio (HR) = 1.04, 95 per cent c.i. 0.88 to 1.22, P = 0.640). Significant variation between the networks was observed for time to chemotherapy (range 40.5-63 days, P < 0.0001) and completion of adjuvant chemotherapy (range 19-52 per cent, P = 0.030). Adjusted for case mix, time to chemotherapy significantly differed between networks. CONCLUSION: In this nationwide analysis, network treatment in patients with resected pancreatic cancer was not associated with longer time to chemotherapy, failure to complete adjuvant chemotherapy, and worse survival. Significant variation between pancreatic cancer networks was found for time to chemotherapy.

An Updated Systematic Review on Focal Therapy in Localized Prostate Cancer: What Has Changed over the Past 5 Years?

CONTEXT: Focal therapy is a promising, minimally invasive strategy to selectively treat localized prostate cancer. A previous systematic review indicated that there is growing evidence for favorable functional outcomes, but that oncological effectiveness was yet to be defined. OBJECTIVE: To assess the effectiveness of focal therapy in patients with localized prostate cancer in terms of functional and oncological outcomes. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: PubMed, Embase, and The Cochrane Library were searched for studies between October 2015 and December 31, 2020. In addition, the research stages were acquired according to the Idea, Development, Exploration, Assessment, Long-term study (IDEAL) recommendations. Ongoing studies were identified through clinical trial registries. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: Seventy-two studies were identified exploring eight different sources of energy to deliver focal therapy in 5827 patients. Twenty-seven studies reported on high-intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU), nine studies on irreversible electroporation, 11 on cryoablation, eight on focal laser ablation and focal brachytherapy, seven on photodynamic therapy (PDT), two on radiofrequency ablation, and one on prostatic artery embolization. The majority of studies were prospective development stage 2a studies (n = 357). PDT and HIFU, both in stage 3, showed promising results. Overall, HIFU studies reported a median of 95% pad-free patients and a median of 85% patients with no clinically significant cancer (CSC) in the treated area. For PDT, no changes in continence were reported and a median of 90% of patients were without CSC. Both treatments were well tolerated. CONCLUSIONS: Over the past 5 yr, focal therapy has been studied for eight different energy sources, mostly in single-arm stage 2 studies. Although a first randomized controlled trial in focal therapy has been performed, more high-quality evaluations are needed, preferably via multicenter randomized controlled trials with long-term follow-up and predefined assessment of oncological and functional outcomes and health-related quality-of-life measures. PATIENT SUMMARY: Focal treatment (FT) of prostate cancer has potential, considering that it has less impact on continence and potency than radical treatment. Our systematic review indicates that despite the method being studied extensively over the past half decade, the majority of studies remain in an early research stage. The techniques high-intensity focused ultrasound and photodynamic therapy have shown most progression toward advanced research stages and show favorable results. However, more high-quality evidence is required before FT can become available as a standard treatment.

Impact of multicentre diagnostic workup in patients with pancreatic cancer on repeated diagnostic investigations, time-to-diagnosis and time-to-treatment: A nationwide analysis.

BACKGROUND: Due to the centralization of pancreatic surgery, patients with suspected pancreatic cancer may undergo diagnostic workup in both a non-pancreatic centre and a pancreatic centre, i.e. multicentre workup. This retrospective study assessed whether multicentre diagnostic workup is associated with repeated diagnostics, delayed time-to-diagnosis, delayed time-to-treatment, survival and whether variation existed among pancreatic cancer networks. METHODS: This nationwide study included all patients diagnosed with non-metastatic pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) in 2015, registered by the Netherlands Cancer Registry. A delayed time-to-diagnosis was defined as ≥3 weeks from initial hospital visit to final diagnosis. A delayed time-to-treatment was defined as ≥6 weeks from the first hospital visit to start of first tumour treatment. Multilevel logistic regression analyses and survival analyses were performed. RESULTS: In total, 931 patients with non-metastatic PDAC were included. Overall, 175 patients (19%) underwent a multicentre diagnostic workup, which was significantly associated with repeated diagnostic investigations (OR = 6.31, 95% CI 4.13-9.64, P < 0.0001), a delayed time-to-diagnosis (OR = 2.66 95% CI 1.74-4.06, P < 0.001), and a delayed time-to-treatment (OR = 1.93 95% CI 1.12-3.31, P = 0.02), but not with decreased survival (HR = 1.09 95% CI 0.83-1.44; P = 0.532). Variation in outcomes per network was observed, especially for time-to-treatment, though the ICC was not statistically significant (P = 0.065). CONCLUSION: Multicentre diagnostic workup for patients with PDAC is associated with repeated diagnostic investigations, a delayed time-to-diagnosis and delayed time-to-treatment compared to patients with monocentre workup. To reduce costs and improve treatment times, efforts should be made to improve network coordination, for example via network care pathways.

Increased Needle Visibility in Ultrasound-Guided Percutaneous Liver Biopsy by an Echogenic Sheath: A Proof of Concept Study in a Human Cadaver.

PURPOSE: For the safety and success of an ultrasound-guided percutaneous liver biopsy, needle visibility and needle tip identification are critical. The aim of this pilot study was to evaluate the influence of an innovative echogenic sheath placed over a standard biopsy needle on needle visibility in ultrasound imaging. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Ultrasound videos of three sheaths with different coating characteristics (echogenicity) and one conventional liver biopsy needle were recorded at two angles (30° and 60°) and two depths (5 and 10 cm) in a human cadaver. The videos were blinded for needle type and presented to five independent radiologists who used Likert-scale scoring to rank each video for six characteristics on needle visibility. In addition, a phantom model was used to acquire standardized images for quantitative evaluation of the ultrasound visibility. Comparative statistical analysis consisted of a one-way ANOVA. RESULTS: The three prototype sheaths were ranked higher than the control needle at 60° with 5 cm depth, with an equal performance for the other conditions. The radiologists expressed more confidence in taking a biopsy with the echogenic sheaths than with the control needle, with 1 Likert score difference at 30°. Contrast analysis in the phantom model showed a statistically significant effect of a sheath (p = 0.004) on echogenic intensity. CONCLUSION: This pilot study suggests that the use of an echogenic sheath may increase needle visibility, particularly for trajectories requiring steeper insertion angles. To investigate the superiority of the echogenic sheath over conventional needles, a clinical study is necessary.

Stage I non-small cell lung cancer: Treatment modalities, Dutch daily practice and future perspectives.

OBJECTIVES: Several treatment modalities are available for patients with stage I non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Over the past decade, these treatment modalities have been further investigated and might have changed current treatment regimens. In this review we present an overview of the treatment options, developments and future perspectives for stage I NSCLC. Furthermore, we describe the current use of these treatment modalities in the Netherlands. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A bibliographical search was performed in PubMed and the Cochrane Library for publications concerning treatment modalities for stage I NSCLC. In addition, evidence-based guidelines of the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) and the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) were studied. RESULTS: The guideline-recommended treatment for operable stage I NSCLC patients is a lobectomy with systematic lymph node dissection. Inoperable patients or those refusing surgery are offered stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR). Percutaneous ablation, such as radiofrequency ablation, is a non-surgical minimally invasive technique offered to those who are ineligible for surgery or SABR. The role of systemic therapy is currently limited. However, the efficacy of immunotherapy is being investigated in clinical trials. In the Netherlands, an increasing use of SABR and a relative decrease in resection rates have been observed. CONCLUSION: Surgery and SABR are currently the prevailing treatment modalities for stage I NSCLC patients. Despite optimization of treatment regimens, survival of patients with stage I NSCLC remains to be improved. Future studies are required to optimize treatment strategies, but also to investigate factors influencing treatment decision-making for patients with stage I NSCLC.

How to incorporate geriatric assessment in clinical decision-making for older patients with cancer. An implementation study.

INTRODUCTION: With the accumulating evidence on the added value on prediction of outcomes of geriatric assessment (GA) in older patients with cancer, the question shifts from whether performing a GA is useful, to how to implement this into standard practice in a feasible and effective way. The effect of implementing GA, and assessment of patient preferences on treatment recommendations by an onco-geriatric multidisciplinary team (MDT), was compared to the recommendation previously made by the tumor board (care as usual). METHODS: Patients aged 70 years and older with a solid malignancy who were referred to a tertiary care center for diagnosis and treatment recommendations, as provided by a tumor board, were included. The intervention consisted of: a nurse-led GA and assessment of patient preferences prior to the start of oncological treatment, discussing this in an onco-geriatric MDT, and weighing all this information in a structured, stepwise manner. Treatment recommendations formulated by this onco-geriatric MDT were compared to the treatment recommendations by the tumor board. RESULTS: Of 236 eligible patients, 197 were included. For 27%, treatment recommendations from the onco-geriatric MDT differed from the recommendations formulated by the tumor board. These modifications were mostly towards less intensive curative or palliative treatment. Thirteen percent of patients were subsequently referred to a geriatrician in order to reach a treatment recommendation. DISCUSSION: Implementing an onco-geriatric care trajectory, using GA and assessment of patient preferences, resulted in an adjustment of treatment recommendations for a quarter of patients. Thirteen percent needed subsequent referral to a geriatrician.