Surgical quality and prospective quality control of the D2-gastrectomy for gastric cancer in the multicenter randomized LOGICA-trial.

BACKGROUND: Quality of gastric cancer surgery is crucial for favorable prognosis. Generally, prospective trials lack quality control measures. This study assessed surgical quality and a novel D2-lymphadenectomy photo-scoring in the LOGICA-trial. METHODS: The multicenter LOGICA-trial randomized laparoscopic versus open total/distal D2-gastrectomy for resectable gastric cancer (cT1-4aN0-3M0) in 10 Dutch hospitals. During the trial, two reviewers prospectively analyzed intraoperative photographs of dissected nodal stations for quality control, and provided centers weekly feedback on their D2-lymphadenectomy, as continuous quality-enhancing incentive. After the trial, these photographs were reanalyzed to develop a photo-scoring for future trials, rating the D2-lymphadenectomy dissection quality (optimal-good-suboptimal-unevaluable). Interobserver variability was calculated (weighted kappa). Regression analyses related the photo-scoring to nodal yield, recurrence and 5-years survival. RESULTS: Between 2015 and 2018, 212 patients underwent total/distal D2-gastrectomy (n = 122/n = 90), and 158 (75%) received neoadjuvant chemotherapy. R0-resection rate was 95%. Rate of ≥15 retrieved lymph nodes was 95%. Moderate agreement was obtained in stations 8 + 9 (κ = 0.522), 11p/11d (κ = 0.446) and 12a (κ = 0.441). Consensus was reached for discordant cases (30%). Stations 8 + 9, 11p/11d and 12a were rated 'optimal' in 76%, 63% and 68%. Laparoscopic photographs could be rated better than open (2% versus 12% 'unevaluable'; 73% versus 50% 'optimal'; p = 0.042). The photo-scoring did not show associations with nodal yield (p = 0.214), recurrence (p = 0.406) and survival (p = 0.988). CONCLUSIONS: High radicality and nodal yield demonstrated good quality of D2-gastrectomy. The prospective quality control probably contributed to this. The photo-scoring did not show good performance, but can be refined. Laparoscopic D2-gastrectomy was better suited for standardized surgical photo-evaluation than open surgery.

Digital Self-Management Support Tools in the Care Plan of Patients With Cancer: Review of Randomized Controlled Trials.

BACKGROUND: Digital self-management support tools (DSMSTs)-electronic devices or monitoring systems to monitor or improve health status-have become increasingly important in cancer care. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this review is to analyze published randomized clinical trials to assess the effectiveness of DSMSTs on physical and psychosocial symptoms or other supportive care needs in adult patients with cancer. METHODS: Five databases were searched from January 2013 to January 2020. English or Dutch language randomized controlled trials comparing DSMSTs with no intervention, usual care, alternative interventions, or a combination and including patients aged ≥18 years with pathologically proven cancer in the active treatment or survivorship phases were included. The results were summarized qualitatively. RESULTS: A total of 19 publications describing 3 types of DSMSTs were included. Although the content, duration, and frequency of interventions varied considerably across studies, the commonly used elements included an assessment component, tailored symptom self-management support, an information section, a communication section, and a diary. Significant positive effects were observed on quality of life in 6 (out of 10) studies, on anxiety in 1 (out of 5) study and depression in 2 (out of 8) studies, on symptom distress in 5 (out of 7) studies, on physical activity in 4 (out of 6) studies, on dietary behavior in 1 (out of 4) study, and on fatigue in 2 (out of 5) studies. Moreover, significant negative effects were observed on anxiety in 1 (out of 5) study and depression in 1 (out of 8) study. Most interventions were web-based interventions; 2 studies used mobile apps, and 1 study used a game as a DSMST. The overall quality of the studies was found to be good, with 13 out of 19 studies classified as high quality. CONCLUSIONS: This review suggests that DSMSTs have a beneficial effect on the quality of life. For effects on other patient outcomes (eg, anxiety and depression, symptom distress, physical activity, dietary behavior, and fatigue), the evidence is inconsistent and limited or no effect is suggested. Future research should focus on specific tumor types, study different types of interventions separately, and assess the effects of specific interventions at different stages of disease progression.

Trends in treatment and overall survival among patients with proximal esophageal cancer.

BACKGROUND: The management of proximal esophageal cancer differs from that of tumors located in the mid and lower part of the esophagus due to the close vicinity of vital structures. Non-surgical treatment options like radiotherapy and definitive chemoradiation (CRT) have been implemented. The trends in (non-)surgical treatment and its impact on overall survival (OS) in patients with proximal esophageal cancer are unclear, related to its rare disease status. To optimize treatment strategies and counseling of patients with proximal esophageal cancer, it is therefore essential to gain more insight through real-life studies. AIM: To establish trends in treatment and OS in patients with proximal esophageal cancer. METHODS: In this population-based study, patients with proximal esophageal cancer diagnosed between 1989 and 2014 were identified in the Netherlands Cancer Registry. The proximal esophagus consists of the cervical esophagus and the upper thoracic section, extending to 24 cm from the incisors. Trends in radiotherapy, chemotherapy, and surgery, and OS were assessed. Analyses were stratified by presence of distant metastasis. Multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression analyses was performed to assess the effect of period of diagnosis on OS, adjusted for patient, tumor, and treatment characteristics. RESULTS: In total, 2783 patients were included. Over the study period, the use of radiotherapy, resection, and CRT in non-metastatic disease changed from 53%, 23%, and 1% in 1989-1994 to 21%, 9%, and 49% in 2010-2014, respectively. In metastatic disease, the use of chemotherapy and radiotherapy increased over time. Median OS of the total population increased from 7.3 mo [95% confidence interval (CI): 6.4-8.1] in 1989-1994 to 9.5 mo (95%CI: 8.1-10.8) in 2010-2014 (logrank P < 0.001). In non-metastatic disease, 5-year OS rates improved from 5% (95%CI: 3%-7%) in 1989-1994 to 13% (95%CI: 9%-17%) in 2010-2014 (logrank P < 0.001). Multivariable regression analysis demonstrated a significant treatment effect over time on survival. In metastatic disease, median OS was 3.8 mo (95%CI: 2.5-5.1) in 1989-1994, and 5.1 mo (95%CI: 4.3-5.9) in 2010-2014 (logrank P = 0.26). CONCLUSION: OS significantly improved in non-metastatic proximal esophageal cancer, likely to be associated with an increased use of CRT. Patterns in metastatic disease did not change significantly over time.

Laparoscopic cholecystectomy versus percutaneous catheter drainage for acute cholecystitis in high risk patients (CHOCOLATE): multicentre randomised clinical trial.

OBJECTIVE: To assess whether laparoscopic cholecystectomy is superior to percutaneous catheter drainage in high risk patients with acute calculous cholecystitis. DESIGN: Multicentre, randomised controlled, superiority trial. SETTING: 11 hospitals in the Netherlands, February 2011 to January 2016. PARTICIPANTS: 142 high risk patients with acute calculous cholecystitis were randomly allocated to laparoscopic cholecystectomy (n=66) or to percutaneous catheter drainage (n=68). High risk was defined as an acute physiological assessment and chronic health evaluation II (APACHE II) score of 7 or more. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary endpoints were death within one year and the occurrence of major complications, defined as infectious and cardiopulmonary complications within one month, need for reintervention (surgical, radiological, or endoscopic that had to be related to acute cholecystitis) within one year, or recurrent biliary disease within one year. RESULTS: The trial was concluded early after a planned interim analysis. The rate of death did not differ between the laparoscopic cholecystectomy and percutaneous catheter drainage group (3% v 9%, P=0.27), but major complications occurred in eight of 66 patients (12%) assigned to cholecystectomy and in 44 of 68 patients (65%) assigned to percutaneous drainage (risk ratio 0.19, 95% confidence interval 0.10 to 0.37; P<0.001). In the drainage group 45 patients (66%) required a reintervention compared with eight patients (12%) in the cholecystectomy group (P<0.001). Recurrent biliary disease occurred more often in the percutaneous drainage group (53% v 5%, P<0.001), and the median length of hospital stay was longer (9 days v 5 days, P<0.001). CONCLUSION: Laparoscopic cholecystectomy compared with percutaneous catheter drainage reduced the rate of major complications in high risk patients with acute cholecystitis. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Dutch Trial Register NTR2666.

Accuracy of Detecting Residual Disease After Cross Neoadjuvant Chemoradiotherapy for Esophageal Cancer (preSANO Trial): Rationale and Protocol.

BACKGROUND: Results from the recent CROSS trial showed that neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (nCRT) significantly increased survival as compared to surgery alone in patients with potentially curable esophageal cancer. Furthermore, in the nCRT arm 49% of patients with a squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) and 23% of patients with an adenocarcinoma (AC) had a pathologically complete response in the resection specimen. These results provide a rationale to reconsider and study the timing and necessity of esophagectomy in (all) patients after application of the CROSS regimen. OBJECTIVE: We propose a "surgery as needed" approach after completion of nCRT. In this approach, patients will undergo active surveillance after completion of nCRT. Surgical resection would be offered only to those patients in whom residual disease or a locoregional recurrence is highly suspected or proven. However, before a surgery as needed approach in oesophageal cancer patients (SANO) can be tested in a randomized controlled trial, we aim to determine the accuracy of detecting the presence or absence of residual disease after nCRT (preSANO trial). METHODS: This study is set up as a prospective, single arm, multicenter, diagnostic trial. Operable patients with potentially curable SCC or AC of the esophagus or esophagogastric junction will be included. Approximately 4-6 weeks after completion of nCRT all included patients will undergo a first clinical response evaluation (CRE-I) including endoscopy with (random) conventional mucosal biopsies of the primary tumor site and of any other suspected lesions in the esophagus and radial endo-ultrasonography (EUS) for measurement of tumor thickness and area. Patients in whom no locoregional or disseminated disease can be proven by cytohistology will be offered a postponed surgical resection 6-8 weeks after CRE-I (ie, approximately 12-14 weeks after completion of nCRT). In the week preceding the postponed surgical resection, a second clinical response evaluation (CRE-II) will be planned that will include a whole body PET-CT, followed again by endoscopy with (random) conventional mucosal biopsies of the primary tumor site and any other suspected lesions in the esophagus, radial EUS for measurement of tumor thickness and area, and linear EUS plus fine needle aspiration of PET-positive lesions and/or suspected lymph nodes. The main study parameter is the correlation between the clinical response assessment during CRE-I and CRE-II and the final pathological response in the resection specimen. RESULTS: The first patient was enrolled on July 23, 2013, and results are expected in January 2016. CONCLUSIONS: If this preSANO trial shows that the presence or absence of residual tumor can be predicted reliably 6 or 12 weeks after completion of nCRT, a randomized trial comparing nCRT plus standard surgery versus chemoradiotherapy plus "surgery as needed" will be conducted (SANO trial). TRIAL REGISTRATION: Netherlands Trial Register: NTR4834; http://www.trialregister.nl/trialreg/admin/rctview.asp?TC=4834 (archived by Webcite at http://www.webcitation.org/6Ze7mn67B).