Diagnosis clarification by generalization to patient-friendly terms and definitions: Validation study.

BACKGROUND: Now that patients increasingly get access to their healthcare records, its contents require clarification. The use of patient-friendly terms and definitions can help patients and their significant others understand their medical data. However, it is costly to make patient-friendly descriptions for the myriad of terms used in the medical domain. Furthermore, a description in more general terms, leaving out some of the details, might already be sufficient for a layperson. We developed an algorithm that employs the SNOMED CT hierarchy to generalize diagnoses to a limited set of concepts with patient-friendly terms for this purpose. However, generalization essentially implies loss of detail and might result in errors, hence these generalizations remain to be validated by clinicians. We aim to assess the medical validity of diagnosis clarification by generalization to concepts with patient-friendly terms and definitions in SNOMED CT. Furthermore, we aim to identify the characteristics that render clarifications invalid. RESULTS: Two raters identified errors in 12.7% (95% confidence interval - CI: 10.7-14.6%) of a random sample of 1,131 clarifications and they considered 14.3% (CI: 12.3-16.4%) of clarifications to be unacceptable to show to a patient. The intraclass correlation coefficient of the interrater reliability was 0.34 for correctness and 0.43 for acceptability. Errors were mostly related to the patient-friendly terms and definitions used in the clarifications themselves, but also to terminology mappings, terminology modelling, and the clarification algorithm. Clarifications considered to be most unacceptable were those that provide wrong information and might cause unnecessary worry. CONCLUSIONS: We have identified problems in generalizing diagnoses to concepts with patient-friendly terms. Diagnosis generalization can be used to create a large amount of correct and acceptable clarifications, reusing patient-friendly terms and definitions across many medical concepts. However, the correctness and acceptability have a strong dependency on terminology mappings and modelling quality, as well as the quality of the terms and definitions themselves. Therefore, validation and quality improvement are required to prevent incorrect and unacceptable clarifications, before using the generalizations in practice.

Gastrectomy Versus Esophagectomy for Gastroesophageal Junction Tumors: Short- and Long-Term Outcomes From the Dutch Upper Gastrointestinal Cancer Audit.

OBJECTIVE: Investigate long-term survival, morbidity, mortality, and pathology results in patients following esophagectomy or total gastrectomy for gastroesophageal junction (GEJ) cancer. BACKGROUND: Both a total gastrectomy and an esophagectomy may be valid treatment options in patients with GEJ cancer. Which procedure results in the most optimal patient outcome is not well studied. The aim of this study was to investigate the long-term survival, morbidity, mortality, and pathology results in patients following esophagectomy or total gastrectomy for GEJ cancer. METHODS: A retrospective comparative cohort study of prospectively collected data from the Dutch Upper GI Cancer Audit combined with survival data of the Dutch medical insurance database was performed. Patients with GEJ cancer in whom a total gastrectomy or an esophagectomy was performed between 2011 and 2016 were compared. The primary outcome was 3-year overall survival. Postoperative morbidity, mortality, 3-year conditional survival, radicality of resection, and lymph node yield were secondary endpoints. RESULTS: A total of 871 patients were included: 790 following esophagectomy and 81 following gastrectomy. The 3-year overall survival was 35.8% after esophagectomy and 28.4% after gastrectomy (hazard ratio 1.2, 95% confidence interval 0.721-1.836, P = 0.557). Postoperative morbidity, mortality, radicality of resection, lymph node yield, and 3-year conditional survival did not differ significantly between groups. CONCLUSION: A total gastrectomy and an esophagectomy for GEJ cancer show largely comparable results with regard to long-term survival, postoperative morbidity, mortality, and pathology results. If both procedures are feasible, other parameters such as surgeon's experience and quality of life should be considered when planning for surgery.

Transthoracic Versus Transhiatal Esophagectomy for Esophageal Cancer: A Nationwide Propensity Score-Matched Cohort Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Chemoradiation followed by resection has been the standard therapy for resectable (cT1-4aN0-3M0) esophageal carcinoma in the Netherlands since 2010. The optimal surgical approach remains a matter of debate. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to compare the transhiatal and the transthoracic approach concerning morbidity, mortality and oncological quality. METHODS: Data was acquired from the Dutch Upper GI Cancer Audit. Patients who underwent esophagectomy with curative intent and gastric tube reconstruction for mid/distal esophageal or esophagogastric junction carcinoma (cT1-4aN0-3M0) from 2011 to 2016 were included. Patients who underwent a transthoracic and transhiatal esophagectomy were compared after propensity score matching. RESULTS: After propensity score matching, 1532 of 4143 patients were included for analysis. The transthoracic approach yielded more lymph nodes (transthoracic median 19, transhiatal median 14; p < 0.001). There was no difference in the number of positive lymph nodes, however, the median (y)pN-stage was higher in the transthoracic group (p = 0.044). The transthoracic group experienced more chyle leakage (9.7% vs. 2.7%, p < 0.001), more pulmonary complications (35.5% vs. 26.1%, p < 0.001), and more cardiac complications (15.4% vs. 10.3%, p = 0.003). The transthoracic group required a longer hospital stay (median 14 vs. 11 days, p < 0.001), ICU stay (median 3 vs. 1 day, p < 0.001), and had a higher 30-day/in-hospital mortality rate (4.0% vs. 1.7%, p = 0.009). CONCLUSIONS: In a propensity score-matched cohort, the transthoracic esophagectomy provided a more extensive lymph node dissection, which resulted in a higher lymph node yield, at the cost of increased morbidity and short-term mortality.

Morbidity and mortality in complex robot-assisted hiatal hernia surgery: 7-year experience in a high-volume center.

INTRODUCTION: Published data regarding robot-assisted hiatal hernia repair are mainly limited to small cohorts. This study aimed to provide information on the morbidity and mortality of robot-assisted complex hiatal hernia repair and redo anti-reflux surgery in a high-volume center. MATERIALS AND METHODS: All patients that underwent robot-assisted hiatal hernia repair, redo hiatal hernia repair, and anti-reflux surgery between 2011 and 2017 at the Meander Medical Centre, Amersfoort, the Netherlands were evaluated. Primary endpoints were 30-day morbidity and mortality. Major complications were defined as Clavien-Dindo ≥ IIIb. RESULTS: Primary surgery 211 primary surgeries were performed by two surgeons. The median age was 67 (IQR 58-73) years. 84.4% of patients had a type III or IV hernia (10.9% Type I; 1.4% Type II; 45.5% Type III; 38.9% Type IV, 1.4% no herniation). In 3.3% of procedures, conversion was required. 17.1% of patients experienced complications. The incidence of major complications was 5.2%. Ten patients (4.7%) were readmitted within 30 days. Symptomatic early recurrence occurred in two patients (0.9%). The 30-day mortality was 0.9%. Redo surgery 151 redo procedures were performed by two surgeons. The median age was 60 (IQR 51-68) years. In 2.0%, the procedure was converted. The overall incidence of complications was 10.6%, while the incidence of major complications was 2.6%. Three patients (2.0%) were readmitted within 30 days. One patient (0.7%) experienced symptomatic early recurrence. No patients died in the 30-day postoperative period. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides valuable information on robot-assisted laparoscopic repair of primary or recurrent hiatal hernia and anti-reflux surgery for both patient and surgeon. Serious morbidity of 5.2% in primary surgery and 2.6% in redo surgery, in this large series with a high surgeon caseload, has to be outweighed by the gain in quality of life or relief of serious medical implications of hiatal hernia when counseling for surgical intervention.