Results of the Austrian National Lung Cancer Audit.

OBJECTIVES: The Austrian Lung Cancer Audit (ALCA) is a pilot study to evaluate clinical and organizational factors related to lung cancer care across Austria. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The ALCA is a prospective, observational, noninterventional cohort study conducted in 17 departments in Austria between September 2013 and March 2015. Participating departments were selected based on an annual case load of >50 patients with lung cancer. RESULTS: The ALCA included 745 patients, representing 50.5% of all newly diagnosed cancer cases during that time period. In 75.8% of patients, diagnosis was based on histology, and in 24.2% on cytology; 83.1% had non-small-cell lung cancer, 16.9% small-cell lung cancer; and only 4.6% had to be classified as not otherwise specified cancers. The median time elapsed between first presentation at hospital and diagnosis was 8 days (interquartile range [IQR]: 4-15; range: 0-132); between diagnosis and start of treatment it was 15 days for chemotherapy (IQR: 9-27; range: 0-83), 21 days (IQR: 10-35; range: 0-69) for radiotherapy, and 24 days (IQR: 11-36; range: 0-138) for surgery, respectively. In 150 patients undergoing surgical treatment, only 3 (2.0%; n = 147, 3 missings) were seen with postoperative restaging indicating unjustified surgery. One-year follow-up data were available for 723 patients, indicating excellent 49.8% survival; however, a wide range of survival between departments (range: 37.8-66.7) was seen. CONCLUSIONS: The ALCA conducted in high case load departments indicated management of lung cancer in accordance with international guidelines, and overall excellent 1-year survival.

Effectiveness, benefit harm and cost effectiveness of colorectal cancer screening in Austria.

BACKGROUND: Clear evidence on the benefit-harm balance and cost effectiveness of population-based screening for colorectal cancer (CRC) is missing. We aim to systematically evaluate the long-term effectiveness, harms and cost effectiveness of different organized CRC screening strategies in Austria. METHODS: A decision-analytic cohort simulation model for colorectal adenoma and cancer with a lifelong time horizon was developed, calibrated to the Austrian epidemiological setting and validated against observed data. We compared four strategies: 1) No Screening, 2) FIT: annual immunochemical fecal occult blood test age 40-75 years, 3) gFOBT: annual guaiac-based fecal occult blood test age 40-75 years, and 4) COL: 10-yearly colonoscopy age 50-70 years. Predicted outcomes included: benefits expressed as life-years gained [LYG], CRC-related deaths avoided and CRC cases avoided; harms as additional complications due to colonoscopy (physical harm) and positive test results (psychological harm); and lifetime costs. Tradeoffs were expressed as incremental harm-benefit ratios (IHBR, incremental positive test results per LYG) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios [ICER]. The perspective of the Austrian public health care system was adopted. Comprehensive sensitivity analyses were performed to assess uncertainty. RESULTS: The most effective strategies were FIT and COL. gFOBT was less effective and more costly than FIT. Moving from COL to FIT results in an incremental unintended psychological harm of 16 additional positive test results to gain one life-year. COL was cost saving compared to No Screening. Moving from COL to FIT has an ICER of 15,000 EUR per LYG. CONCLUSIONS: Organized CRC-screening with annual FIT or 10-yearly colonoscopy is most effective. The choice between these two options depends on the individual preferences and benefit-harm tradeoffs of screening candidates.

Efficacy and safety of a new low-volume PEG with citrate and simethicone bowel preparation for colonoscopy (Clensia): a multicenter randomized observer-blind clinical trial vs. a low-volume PEG with ascorbic acid (PEG-ASC).

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS: Quality of inspection during colonoscopy is strictly related to the level of cleansing. High-volume (PEG-based) solutions are highly effective and safe, but their high volume affects tolerability and compliance. The aim of this study was to compare a new low-volume PEG with citrate and simethicone solution (PMF 104,Clensia) with a low-volume PEG with ascorbic acid solution (PEG-ASC; Moviprep). PATIENTS AND METHODS: This was a multicenter, randomized, observer-blind, parallel-group, phase 3 clinical trial, where patients were randomized between PMF 104 and PEG-ASC. In both groups, patients were instructed to take a full-dose regimen the evening before if colonoscopy was scheduled before 11 am to 12 pm, or to take a split regimen if colonoscopy was scheduled after 11 am to 12 pm. The primary end-point was an equivalence between PMF104 and PEG-ASC in the rate of adequate level of cleansing (Ottawa scale ≤ 6), with safety, mucosal visibility, tolerability, acceptance and compliance being also assessed. RESULTS: Of the 403 enrolled, 367 patients (Mean age [SD]: 55.6 (14.4) years; male:166 [45.2 %]) were included in the per protocol (PP) analysis: 184 being randomized in the PMF 104 group and 183 in the PEG-ASC group. Successful bowel cleansing was 78.3 % and 74.3 % in PMF104 and in PEG-ASC, respectively ( P  = 0.37). Both preparations were equally safe (mild adverse events were observed in 9.2 % and 9.3 % of patients in the PMF104 and in the PEG-ASC group, respectively) and acceptable (no or mild distress during the intake in 81.4 % and 80.8 % in the PMF104 in the PEG-ASC, respectively [ P  = 0.74]). CONCLUSION: The new low-volume product Clensia is equivalent to the reference low-volume PEG-ASC in terms of bowel cleansing, safety and acceptance.

Sedation in screening colonoscopy: impact on quality indicators and complications.

OBJECTIVES: Quality indicators including cecal intubation rate (CIR) and adenoma detection rate (ADR) are established. Sex differences of quality indicators are observed, but the influence of sedation has not been investigated so far. The objective of this study is to assess the impact of sedation on quality indicators, including CIR and ADR, according to sex. METHODS: We analyzed data of 52,506 screening colonoscopies performed by 196 endoscopists between November 2007 and April 2011 according to the Austrian "quality management for colon cancer prevention" program. RESULTS: Sedation did not affect polyp detection rate (women P=0.7972, men P=0.3711) or ADR for both sexes (women P=0.2773, men P=0.8676). ADR was not significantly influenced by sedation (P=0.1272), but by age and sex (both P<0.0001), when the executing endoscopist was considered. Although women were more often sedated than men (90.70 vs. 81.83%; P<0.0001), CIR was slightly lower in women than in men (94.69 vs. 96.58%; P<0.0001). Sedation improved the CIR in women by 2.95% (94.96 vs. 92.01%; P<0.0001), whereas in men it was just by 1.28% (96.81 vs. 95.53%; P<0.0001). Sedated women only reached the CIR of unsedated men (94.96 vs. 95.53%; P=0.1005). Accounting for the intra-observer influence of the endoscopist, the overall CIR was influenced by the interaction of sex and age (P=0.0049), but not by sedation (P=0.1435). CONCLUSIONS: Sedation does not increase adenoma or polyp detection, although it leads to an increase in CIR in men and women. This effect is more pronounced in women, yet CIR of men remains higher compared with women. Quality indicators are mainly influenced by the patient's age, sex, and the endoscopists' individual performance, rather than the endoscopists' subspeciality or procedural experience.