Search

Your search keyword '"Lerut T."' showing total 240 results
Start Over Author "Lerut T." Search Limiters Available in Library Collection
240 results on '"Lerut T."'

1. The SUPER reporting guideline suggested for reporting of surgical technique

Author

Zhang, K, Ma, Y, Wu, J, Shi, Q, Barchi, L, Scarci, M, Petersen, R, Ng, C, Hochwald, S, Waseda, R, Davoli, F, Fruscio, R, Levi Sandri, G, Gonzalez, M, Wei, B, Piessen, G, Shen, J, Zhang, X, Jiao, P, He, Y, Novoa, N, Bedetti, B, Gilbert, S, Sihoe, A, Toker, A, Fiorelli, A, Jimenez, M, Lerut, T, Oo, A, Li, G, Tang, X, Lu, Y, Elkhayat, H, Štupnik, T, Laisaar, T, Abu Akar, F, Gonzalez-Rivas, D, Su, Z, Qiu, B, Wang, S, Chen, Y, Gao, S, Zhang, Kaiping, Ma, Yanfang, Wu, Jinlin, Shi, Qianling, Barchi, Leandro Cardoso, Scarci, Marco, Petersen, Rene Horsleben, Ng, Calvin S H, Hochwald, Steven, Waseda, Ryuichi, Davoli, Fabio, Fruscio, Robert, Levi Sandri, Giovanni Battista, Gonzalez, Michel, Wei, Benjamin, Piessen, Guillaume, Shen, Jianfei, Zhang, Xianzhuo, Jiao, Panpan, He, Yulong, Novoa, Nuria M, Bedetti, Benedetta, Gilbert, Sebastien, Sihoe, Alan D L, Toker, Alper, Fiorelli, Alfonso, Jimenez, Marcelo F, Lerut, Toni, Oo, Aung Y, Li, Grace S, Tang, Xueqin, Lu, Yawen, Elkhayat, Hussein, Štupnik, Tomaž, Laisaar, Tanel, Abu Akar, Firas, Gonzalez-Rivas, Diego, Su, Zhanhao, Qiu, Bin, Wang, Stephen D, Chen, Yaolong, Gao, Shugeng, Zhang, K, Ma, Y, Wu, J, Shi, Q, Barchi, L, Scarci, M, Petersen, R, Ng, C, Hochwald, S, Waseda, R, Davoli, F, Fruscio, R, Levi Sandri, G, Gonzalez, M, Wei, B, Piessen, G, Shen, J, Zhang, X, Jiao, P, He, Y, Novoa, N, Bedetti, B, Gilbert, S, Sihoe, A, Toker, A, Fiorelli, A, Jimenez, M, Lerut, T, Oo, A, Li, G, Tang, X, Lu, Y, Elkhayat, H, Štupnik, T, Laisaar, T, Abu Akar, F, Gonzalez-Rivas, D, Su, Z, Qiu, B, Wang, S, Chen, Y, Gao, S, Zhang, Kaiping, Ma, Yanfang, Wu, Jinlin, Shi, Qianling, Barchi, Leandro Cardoso, Scarci, Marco, Petersen, Rene Horsleben, Ng, Calvin S H, Hochwald, Steven, Waseda, Ryuichi, Davoli, Fabio, Fruscio, Robert, Levi Sandri, Giovanni Battista, Gonzalez, Michel, Wei, Benjamin, Piessen, Guillaume, Shen, Jianfei, Zhang, Xianzhuo, Jiao, Panpan, He, Yulong, Novoa, Nuria M, Bedetti, Benedetta, Gilbert, Sebastien, Sihoe, Alan D L, Toker, Alper, Fiorelli, Alfonso, Jimenez, Marcelo F, Lerut, Toni, Oo, Aung Y, Li, Grace S, Tang, Xueqin, Lu, Yawen, Elkhayat, Hussein, Štupnik, Tomaž, Laisaar, Tanel, Abu Akar, Firas, Gonzalez-Rivas, Diego, Su, Zhanhao, Qiu, Bin, Wang, Stephen D, Chen, Yaolong, and Gao, Shugeng

Abstract

Background: Existing reporting guidelines pay insufficient attention to the detail and comprehensiveness reporting of surgical technique. The Surgical techniqUe rePorting chEcklist and standaRds (SUPER) aims to address this gap by defining reporting standards for surgical technique. The SUPER guideline intends to apply to articles that encompass surgical technique in any study design, surgical discipline, and stage of surgical innovation. Methods: Following the EQUATOR (Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research) Network approach, 16 surgeons, journal editors, and methodologists reviewed existing reporting guidelines relating to surgical technique, reviewed papers from 15 top journals, and brainstormed to draft initial items for the SUPER. The initial items were revised through a three-round Delphi survey from 21 multidisciplinary Delphi panel experts from 13 countries and regions. The final SUPER items were formed after an online consensus meeting to resolve disagreements and a three-round wording refinement by all 16 SUPER working group members and five SUPER consultants. Results: The SUPER reporting guideline includes 22 items that are considered essential for good and informative surgical technique reporting. The items are divided into six sections: background, rationale, and objectives (items 1 to 5); preoperative preparations and requirements (items 6 to 9); surgical technique details (items 10 to 15); postoperative considerations and tasks (items 16 to 19); summary and prospect (items 20 and 21); and other information (item 22). Conclusions: The SUPER reporting guideline has the potential to guide detailed, comprehensive, and transparent surgical technique reporting for surgeons. It may also assist journal editors, peer reviewers, systematic reviewers, and guideline developers in the evaluation of surgical technique papers and help practitioners to better understand and reproduce surgical technique. Trial registration: https://www.equator-netwo

Published
2023

2. The SUPER reporting guideline suggested for reporting of surgical technique: explanation and elaboration

Author

Zhang, K, Wu, J, Su, Z, Ma, Y, Shi, Q, Barchi, L, Laisaar, T, Ng, C, Gilbert, S, Zhang, X, Štupnik, T, Lerut, T, Jiao, P, Elkhayat, H, Novoa, N, Fruscio, R, Waseda, R, Petersen, R, Fiorelli, A, Sihoe, A, Gonzalez-Rivas, D, Scarci, M, Jimenez, M, Li, G, Tang, X, Wang, S, Chen, Y, Zhang, Kaiping, Wu, Jinlin, Su, Zhanhao, Ma, Yanfang, Shi, Qianling, Barchi, Leandro Cardoso, Laisaar, Tanel, Ng, Calvin S H, Gilbert, Sebastien, Zhang, Xianzhuo, Štupnik, Tomaž, Lerut, Toni, Jiao, Panpan, Elkhayat, Hussein, Novoa, Nuria M, Fruscio, Robert, Waseda, Ryuichi, Petersen, Rene Horsleben, Fiorelli, Alfonso, Sihoe, Alan D L, Gonzalez-Rivas, Diego, Scarci, Marco, Jimenez, Marcelo F, Li, Grace S, Tang, Xueqin, Wang, Stephen D, Chen, Yaolong, Zhang, K, Wu, J, Su, Z, Ma, Y, Shi, Q, Barchi, L, Laisaar, T, Ng, C, Gilbert, S, Zhang, X, Štupnik, T, Lerut, T, Jiao, P, Elkhayat, H, Novoa, N, Fruscio, R, Waseda, R, Petersen, R, Fiorelli, A, Sihoe, A, Gonzalez-Rivas, D, Scarci, M, Jimenez, M, Li, G, Tang, X, Wang, S, Chen, Y, Zhang, Kaiping, Wu, Jinlin, Su, Zhanhao, Ma, Yanfang, Shi, Qianling, Barchi, Leandro Cardoso, Laisaar, Tanel, Ng, Calvin S H, Gilbert, Sebastien, Zhang, Xianzhuo, Štupnik, Tomaž, Lerut, Toni, Jiao, Panpan, Elkhayat, Hussein, Novoa, Nuria M, Fruscio, Robert, Waseda, Ryuichi, Petersen, Rene Horsleben, Fiorelli, Alfonso, Sihoe, Alan D L, Gonzalez-Rivas, Diego, Scarci, Marco, Jimenez, Marcelo F, Li, Grace S, Tang, Xueqin, Wang, Stephen D, and Chen, Yaolong

Abstract

Background: Surgical technique plays an essential role in achieving good health outcomes. However, the quality of surgical technique reporting remains heterogeneous. Reporting checklists could help authors to describe the surgical technique more transparently and effectively, as well as to assist reviewers and editors evaluate it more informatively, and promote readers to better understand the technique. We previously developed SUPER (surgical technique reporting checklist and standards) to assist authors in reporting their research that contains surgical technique more transparently. However, further explanation and elaboration of each item are needed for better understanding and reporting practice. Methods: We searched surgical literature in PubMed, Google Scholar and journal websites published up to January 2023 to find multidiscipline examples in various article types for each SUPER item. Results: We explain the 22 items of the SUPER and provide rationales item by item alongside. We provide 69 examples from 53 literature that present optimal reporting of the 22 items. Article types of examples include pure surgical technique, and case reports, observational studies and clinical trials that contain surgical technique. Examples are multidisciplinary, including general surgery, orthopaedical surgery, cardiac surgery, thoracic surgery, gastrointestinal surgery, neurological surgery, oncogenic surgery, and emergency surgery etc. Conclusions: Along with SUPER article, this explanation and elaboration file can promote deeper understanding on the SUPER items. We hope that the article could further guide surgeons and researchers in reporting, and assist editors and peer reviewers in reviewing manuscripts related to surgical technique.

Published
2023

3. Evidence on reporting guidelines for surgical technique in clinical disciplines: a scoping review protocol

Author

Zhang, K, Ma, Y, Shi, Q, Shen, J, Wu, J, Zhang, X, Jiao, P, Li, G, Tang, X, Petersen, R, Ng, C, Fiorelli, A, Novoa, N, Bedetti, B, Sandri, G, Hochwald, S, Lerut, T, Sihoe, A, Barchi, L, Gilbert, S, Waseda, R, Toker, A, Gonzalez-Rivas, D, Fruscio, R, Scarci, M, Davoli, F, Piessen, G, Qiu, B, Wang, S, Chen, Y, Gao, S, Zhang K., Ma Y., Shi Q., Shen J., Wu J., Zhang X., Jiao P., Li G. S., Tang X., Petersen R. H., Ng C. S. H., Fiorelli A., Novoa N. M., Bedetti B., Sandri G. B. L., Hochwald S., Lerut T., Sihoe A. D. L., Barchi L. C., Gilbert S., Waseda R., Toker A., Gonzalez-Rivas D., Fruscio R., Scarci M., Davoli F., Piessen G., Qiu B., Wang S. D., Chen Y., Gao S., Zhang, K, Ma, Y, Shi, Q, Shen, J, Wu, J, Zhang, X, Jiao, P, Li, G, Tang, X, Petersen, R, Ng, C, Fiorelli, A, Novoa, N, Bedetti, B, Sandri, G, Hochwald, S, Lerut, T, Sihoe, A, Barchi, L, Gilbert, S, Waseda, R, Toker, A, Gonzalez-Rivas, D, Fruscio, R, Scarci, M, Davoli, F, Piessen, G, Qiu, B, Wang, S, Chen, Y, Gao, S, Zhang K., Ma Y., Shi Q., Shen J., Wu J., Zhang X., Jiao P., Li G. S., Tang X., Petersen R. H., Ng C. S. H., Fiorelli A., Novoa N. M., Bedetti B., Sandri G. B. L., Hochwald S., Lerut T., Sihoe A. D. L., Barchi L. C., Gilbert S., Waseda R., Toker A., Gonzalez-Rivas D., Fruscio R., Scarci M., Davoli F., Piessen G., Qiu B., Wang S. D., Chen Y., and Gao S.

Abstract

Background: The reporting of surgical techniques is of mixed quality, with most at a very minimal level. Reporting guidelines that could be applied to guide surgical technique reporting vary in methodology for development, discipline coverage, dimension coverage and detail requested. However, a scoping review that could indicate the gaps and efforts needed in surgical technique reporting guidelines is lacking and warranted. This study aims to design a methodological rigour protocol to guide the development of a scoping review of surgical technique reporting guidelines. Methods: This protocol is designed following the 2020 manual proposed by the Joanna Briggs Institute. To further ensure the soundness of the protocol, we also included multidisciplinary professionals (including methodologists, clinicians, and journal editors) to refine the protocol. Discussion: Seven key steps for developing the scoping review are identified and presented in detail, including (I) identifying the research questions; (II) inclusion criteria; (III) search strategy; (IV) source of evidence selection; (V) data extraction; (VI) analysis of the evidence; and (VII) presentation of the results. Guided by this protocol, the subsequent scoping review will inform us the overview of surgical technique reporting guidelines and precisely guide our direction and next steps in improving surgical technique reporting guidelines. Trial registration: This protocol is not registered as the PROSPERO database only accepts registration of systematic review protocols while does not accept registration of scoping review protocols.

Published
2021

4. Developing the surgical technique reporting checklist and standards: a study protocol

Author

Zhang, K, Ma, Y, Shi, Q, Wu, J, Shen, J, He, Y, Zhang, X, Jiao, P, Li, G, Tang, X, Petersen, R, Ng, C, Fiorelli, A, Novoa, N, Bedetti, B, Levi Sandri, G, Hochwald, S, Lerut, T, Sihoe, A, Barchi, L, Gilbert, S, Waseda, R, Toker, A, Gonzalez-Rivas, D, Fruscio, R, Scarci, M, Davoli, F, Piessen, G, Qiu, B, Wang, S, Chen, Y, Gao, S, Zhang, Kaiping, Ma, Yanfang, Shi, Qianling, Wu, Jinlin, Shen, Jianfei, He, Yulong, Zhang, Xianzhuo, Jiao, Panpan, Li, Grace S, Tang, Xueqin, Petersen, Rene Horsleben, Ng, Calvin S H, Fiorelli, Alfonso, Novoa, Nuria M, Bedetti, Benedetta, Levi Sandri, Giovanni Battista, Hochwald, Steven, Lerut, Toni, Sihoe, Alan D L, Barchi, Leandro Cardoso, Gilbert, Sebastien, Waseda, Ryuichi, Toker, Alper, Gonzalez-Rivas, Diego, Fruscio, Robert, Scarci, Marco, Davoli, Fabio, Piessen, Guillaume, Qiu, Bin, Wang, Stephen D, Chen, Yaolong, Gao, Shugeng, Zhang, K, Ma, Y, Shi, Q, Wu, J, Shen, J, He, Y, Zhang, X, Jiao, P, Li, G, Tang, X, Petersen, R, Ng, C, Fiorelli, A, Novoa, N, Bedetti, B, Levi Sandri, G, Hochwald, S, Lerut, T, Sihoe, A, Barchi, L, Gilbert, S, Waseda, R, Toker, A, Gonzalez-Rivas, D, Fruscio, R, Scarci, M, Davoli, F, Piessen, G, Qiu, B, Wang, S, Chen, Y, Gao, S, Zhang, Kaiping, Ma, Yanfang, Shi, Qianling, Wu, Jinlin, Shen, Jianfei, He, Yulong, Zhang, Xianzhuo, Jiao, Panpan, Li, Grace S, Tang, Xueqin, Petersen, Rene Horsleben, Ng, Calvin S H, Fiorelli, Alfonso, Novoa, Nuria M, Bedetti, Benedetta, Levi Sandri, Giovanni Battista, Hochwald, Steven, Lerut, Toni, Sihoe, Alan D L, Barchi, Leandro Cardoso, Gilbert, Sebastien, Waseda, Ryuichi, Toker, Alper, Gonzalez-Rivas, Diego, Fruscio, Robert, Scarci, Marco, Davoli, Fabio, Piessen, Guillaume, Qiu, Bin, Wang, Stephen D, Chen, Yaolong, and Gao, Shugeng

Abstract

Background: Standardized and transparent reporting of surgical technique is the cornerstone of effective dissemination, implementation and improvement. However, current reporting of surgical techniques is inadequate. The existing guidelines potentially applied to guide surgical technique reporting are with a minimal highlight of the surgical technique, lack requirements explaining what extent and dimensions need to be described in detail, or are unlikely to extrapolate to a wide range of surgical techniques. This study aims to formulate a rigorous protocol to develop a surgical technique reporting checklist and standards (SUPER) that defines what a clear, comprehensive and detailed surgical technique report should be contained.Methods: This protocol is designed following the classic guidance for developing reporting guidelines recommended by the EQUATOR network.Results: The development team will consist of surgeons (similar to 80%), methodologists, and journal editors. The draft checklist sources will include a scoping review of existing reporting guidelines related to surgical technique, surgical technique articles from 15 top journals published in the last year, and brainstorming by the multidisciplinary development team. The final SUPER checklist will be formed after three rounds of Delphi surveys, one round of face-to-face meeting, and a month-long pilot test. The SUPER checklist will be published as open-access and be used in combination with existing reporting guidelines related to surgical techniques (e.g., IDEAL). This protocol will steer the SUPER checklist's development, allowing us to further elaborate surgical technique reporting for all surgical specialties, and enabling a more favorable experience for surgeons, nurses, medical students, residents, editors, and reviewers.

Published
2021

6. Effect of the GAB[A.sub.B] agonist baclofen in patients with symptoms and duodeno-gastro-oesophageal reflux refractory to proton pump inhibitors

Author

Koek, GH, Sifrim, D, Lerut, T, Janssens, J, and Tack, J

Subjects
Baclofen -- Drug use -- Evaluation, Gastroesophageal reflux -- Drug therapy, GABA -- Agonists, Statistics, Health, Drug therapy, Evaluation, Drug use
Abstract

Background and aims: A subset of patients with gastro-oesophageal reflux disease (GORD) with refractory symptoms during therapy with proton pump inhibitors (PPIs), have persistent non-acid duodeno-gastro-oesophageal reflux (duodenal reflux). The [...]

Published
2003

12. European guidelines on structure and qualification of general thoracic surgery

Author

Brunelli, A, Falcoz, Pe, D'Amico, T, Hansen, H, Lim, E, Massard, G, Rice, Tw, Rocco, G, Thomas, P, Van Raemdonck, D, Congregado, M, Decaluwe, H, Grodzki, T, Lerut, T, Molnar, T, Salati, M, Scarci, M, Van Schil, P, Varela, G, Venuta, Federico, Melfi, F, Gebitekin, C, Kuzdzal, J, Leschber, G, Opitz, I, Papagiannopoulos, K, Patterson, A, Ruffini, E, Klepetko, W, Toker, A, Panel, University of Zurich, Brunelli, A, D'Amico, Thomas, and van Schil, Paul

Subjects
Pulmonary and Respiratory Medicine, Operating Rooms, medicine.medical_specialty, General thoracic surgery, Accreditation, Education, Procedures, Professional affairs, Qualification, Structure, 610 Medicine & health, 142-005 142-005, 2705 Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine, Oesophageal surgery, medicine, Humans, media_common.cataloged_instance, Medical physics, European union, Curriculum, Societies, Medical, media_common, Structure (mathematical logic), Scope (project management), business.industry, General Medicine, Thoracic Surgical Procedures, 2746 Surgery, Surgery, Europe, Thoracic surgery, 2740 Pulmonary and Respiratory Medicine, Cardiothoracic surgery, Human medicine, Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine, business
Abstract

OBJECTIVE To update the recommendations for the structural characteristics of general thoracic surgery (GTS) in Europe in order to provide a document that can be used as a guide for harmonizing the general thoracic surgical practice in Europe. METHODS A task force was created to set the structural, procedural and qualification characteristics of a European GTS unit. These criteria were endorsed by the Executive Committee of the European Society of Thoracic Surgeons and by the Thoracic Domain of the European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery and were validated by the European Board of Thoracic Surgery at European Union of Medical Specialists. RESULTS Criteria regarding definition and scope of GTS, structure and qualification of GTS unit, training and education and recommendations for subjects of particular interest (lung transplant, oesophageal surgery, minimally invasive thoracic surgery, quality surveillance) were developed. CONCLUSIONS This document will hopefully represent the first step of a process of revision of the modern thoracic surgeons' curricula, which need to be qualitatively rethought in the setting of the qualification process. The structural criteria highlighted in the present document are meant to help and tackle the challenge of cultural and language barriers as well as of widely varying national training programmes

Published
2014
Full Text
View/download PDF

13. Worldwide Esophageal Cancer Collaboration: pathologic staging data

Author

Rice, T. W., Chen, L.-Q., Hofstetter, W. L., Smithers, B.M., Rusch, V. W., Wijnhoven, B. P. L., Chen, K. L., Davies, A. R., D’Journo, X. B., Kesler, K. A., Luketich, J. D., Ferguson, M. K., Räsänen, J. V., van Hillegersberg, R., Fang, W., Durand, L., Cecconello, I., Allum, W. H., Cerfolio, R. J., Pera, M., Griffin, S. M., Burger, R., Liu, J.-F, Allen, M. S., Law, S., Watson, T. J., Darling, G. E., Scott, W. J., Duranceau, A., Denlinger, C. E., Schipper, P. H., Lerut, T. E. M. R., Orringer, M. B., Ishwaran, H., Apperson-Hansen, C., DiPaola, L. M., Semple, M. E., Blackstone, E. H., and Surgery

Subjects
Ablation Techniques, Adult, Male, Esophageal Neoplasms, Carcinoma, Middle Aged, Prognosis, Risk Assessment, Article, Esophagectomy, SDG 3 - Good Health and Well-being, Humans, Female, Esophagogastric Junction, Intersectoral Collaboration, Aged, Neoplasm Staging
Abstract

We report data-simple descriptions of patient characteristics, cancer categories, and non-risk-adjusted survival-for patients with pathologically staged cancer of the esophagus and esophagogastric junction after resection or ablation with no preoperative therapy from the Worldwide Esophageal Cancer Collaboration (WECC). Thirty-three institutions from six continents submitted de-identified data using standard definitions: demographics, comorbidities, clinical cancer categories, and all-cause mortality from first management decision. Of 13,300 patients, 5,631 had squamous cell carcinoma, 7,558 adenocarcinoma, 85 adenosquamous carcinoma, and 26 undifferentiated carcinoma. Patients were older (62 years) men (80%) with normal body mass index (51%), little weight loss (1.8 kg), 0-2 ECOG performance status (83%), and a history of smoking (70%). Cancers were pT1 (24%), pT2 (15%), pT3 (50%), pN0 (52%), pM0 (93%), and pG2-G3 (78%); most involved distal esophagus (71%). Non-risk-adjusted survival for both squamous cell carcinoma and adenocarcinoma was monotonic and distinctive across pTNM. Survival was more distinctive for adenocarcinoma than squamous cell carcinoma when pT was ordered by pN. Survival for pTis-1 adenocarcinoma was better than for squamous cell carcinoma, although monotonic and distinctive for both. WECC pathologic staging data is improved over that of the 7th edition, with more patients studied and patient and cancer variables collected. These data will be the basis for the 8th edition cancer staging manuals following risk adjustment for patient, cancer, and treatment characteristics, and should direct 9th edition data collection. However, the role of pure pathologic staging as the principal point of reference for esophageal cancer staging is waning.

Published
2016

14. Worldwide Esophageal Cancer Collaboration : clinical staging data

Author

Rice, T. W., Apperson-Hansen, C., DiPaola, L. M., Semple, M. E., Lerut, T. E. M. R., Orringer, M. B., Chen, L.-Q., Hofstetter, W. L., Smithers, B. M., Rusch, V. W., Wijnhoven, B. P. L., Chen, K. N., Davies, A. R., D’Journo, X. B., Kesler, K. A., Luketich, J. D., Ferguson, M. K., Räsänen, J. V., van Hillegersberg, R., Fang, W., Durand, L., Allum, W. H., Cecconello, I., Cerfolio, R. J., Pera, M., Griffin, S. M., Burger, R., Liu, J.-F, Allen, M. S., Law, S., Watson, T. J., Darling, G. E., Scott, W. J., Duranceau, A., Denlinger, C. E., Schipper, P. H., Ishwaran, H., Blackstone, E. H., III kirurgian klinikka, Clinicum, Department of Surgery, and Surgery

Subjects
Adult, Male, Esophageal Neoplasms, Carcinoma, education, 3122 Cancers, Middle Aged, Prognosis, 3126 Surgery, anesthesiology, intensive care, radiology, Risk Assessment, Article, Esophagectomy, SDG 3 - Good Health and Well-being, Humans, Female, Intersectoral Collaboration, Aged, Neoplasm Staging
Abstract

To address uncertainty of whether clinical stage groupings (cTNM) for esophageal cancer share prognostic implications with pathologic groupings after esophagectomy alone (pTNM), we report data—simple descriptions of patient characteristics, cancer categories, and non-risk-adjusted survival—for clinically staged patients from the Worldwide Esophageal Cancer Collaboration (WECC). Thirty-three institutions from six continents submitted data using variables with standard definitions: demographics, comorbidities, clinical cancer categories, and all-cause mortality from first management decision. Of 22,123 clinically staged patients, 8,156 had squamous cell carcinoma, 13,814 adenocarcinoma, 116 adenosquamous carcinoma, and 37 undifferentiated carcinoma. Patients were older (62 years) men (80%) with normal body mass index (18.5–25 mg/kg2, 47%), little weight loss (2.4 ± 7.8 kg), 0–1 ECOG performance status (67%), and history of smoking (67%). Cancers were cT1 (12%), cT2 (22%), cT3 (56%), cNO (44%), cMO (95%), and cG2–G3 (89%); most involved the distal esophagus (73%). Non-risk-adjusted survival for squamous cell carcinoma was not distinctive for early cT or cN; for adenocarcinoma, it was distinctive for early versus advanced cT and for cNO versus cN+. Patients with early cancers had worse survival and those with advanced cancers better survival than expected from equivalent pathologic categories based on prior WECC pathologic data. Thus, clinical and pathologic categories do not share prognostic implications. This makes clinically based treatment decisions difficult and pre-treatment prognostication inaccurate. These data will be the basis for the 8th edition cancer staging manuals following risk adjustment for patient characteristics, cancer categories, and treatment characteristics and should direct 9th edition data collection.

Published
2016

16. LAPAROSCOPIC ANTIREFLUX SURGERY VS ESOMEPRAZOLE TREATMENT FOR CHRONIC GERD – THE LOTUS RANDOMIZED CLINICAL TRIAL

Author

Miholic J, Hubmann R, Danis J, Tack J, Lerut T, Piessevaux H, Devière J, Buset M, Chioccioli C, De Looze D, Demoulin JC, Louis E, Ghilain JM, Maisin JM, Funch Jensen P, Nielsen J, Christensen L, Antonsen H, Lauritsen K, Jess P, Wallin L, Naver L, Galmiche JP, Letessier E, Zerbib F, Bonaz B, Bost R, Delchier JC, Fein M, Maroske J, Ell C, Hölscher A, Zornig C, Schneider JH, Hüttl T, Büchler M, Wehrmann U, Kemen M, Layer P, Fuchs KH, Kemen S, Hüppe D, Oddsdóttir M, Thjodleifsson B, Bonavina L, Ancona E, Morino M, Pignata G, Giurissa A, Rossi M, Cestari R, Gooszen H, Hatlebakk J, Tefera S, Johnsen G, Jahnsen J, Sandstad O, Stallemo A, Florholmen J, Tollåli G, Engström C, Liedman B, Lundell L, Babbs C, Attwood S., ROSATI , RICCARDO, Miholic, J, Hubmann, R, Danis, J, Tack, J, Lerut, T, Piessevaux, H, Devière, J, Buset, M, Chioccioli, C, De Looze, D, Demoulin, Jc, Louis, E, Ghilain, Jm, Maisin, Jm, Funch Jensen, P, Nielsen, J, Christensen, L, Antonsen, H, Lauritsen, K, Jess, P, Wallin, L, Naver, L, Galmiche, Jp, Letessier, E, Zerbib, F, Bonaz, B, Bost, R, Delchier, Jc, Fein, M, Maroske, J, Ell, C, Hölscher, A, Zornig, C, Schneider, Jh, Hüttl, T, Büchler, M, Wehrmann, U, Kemen, M, Layer, P, Fuchs, Kh, Kemen, S, Hüppe, D, Oddsdóttir, M, Thjodleifsson, B, Bonavina, L, Ancona, E, Morino, M, Pignata, G, Giurissa, A, Rossi, M, Rosati, Riccardo, Cestari, R, Gooszen, H, Hatlebakk, J, Tefera, S, Johnsen, G, Jahnsen, J, Sandstad, O, Stallemo, A, Florholmen, J, Tollåli, G, Engström, C, Liedman, B, Lundell, L, Babbs, C, and Attwood, S.

Published
2011

17. Quality indicators for oesophageal and gastric cancer : a population-based study in Belgium, 2004-2008

Author

Vlayen, Joan, Vrijens, France, Camberlin, Cécile, De Gendt, Cindy, Van Eycken, E., Lerut, T., Stordeur, Sabine, Vlayen, Joan, Vrijens, France, Camberlin, Cécile, De Gendt, Cindy, Van Eycken, E., Lerut, T., and Stordeur, Sabine

Abstract

376-386, This study aimed at developing and measuring quality indicators for oesophageal cancer (OC) and gastric cancer (GC) and to support quality improvement for practitioners. Quality indicators were identified from a systematic literature search including clinical guidelines. The selection process involved experts evaluating relevance, reliability, interpretability and actionability of each indicator. Three national databases were linked: the cancer registry, the population registry and the claims database. Completeness and validity of the data were validated before being measured for 10,660 patients diagnosed between 2004 and 2008. From a final set of 29 indicators, 18 were measurable using the available data. In 2008, less than 50% of patients were discussed at a multidisciplinary team meeting and less than 90% underwent a computed tomography scan 1 month after incidence date for cancer staging. Five-year relative survival was 22% for OC and 34.3% for GC. The post-operative mortality in OC patients was 4.8% (30 days) and 9.9% (90 days), whereas it reached 5.6 and 12.0% respectively in GC patients. This study demonstrates the feasibility to develop a set of quality indicators for gastro-oesophageal cancer. A mixed picture of the quality of care was illustrated for some relevant care processes. Nevertheless, 5-year survival is higher than reported in neighbouring countries.

Published
2015

22. A Multicenter Study of Survival After Neoadjuvant Radiotherapy/Chemotherapy and Esophagectomy for ypT0N0M0R0 Esophageal Cancer

Author

Vallboehmer, D., Hoelscher, Arnulf H., DeMeester, S., DeMeester, T., Salo, J., Peters, J., Lerut, T., Swisher, S. G., Schroeder, W., Bollschweiler, E., Hofstetter, W., Vallboehmer, D., Hoelscher, Arnulf H., DeMeester, S., DeMeester, T., Salo, J., Peters, J., Lerut, T., Swisher, S. G., Schroeder, W., Bollschweiler, E., and Hofstetter, W.

Abstract

Objective: To evaluate 5-year survival of patients with locally advanced esophageal cancer (LAEC) who have undergone multimodality treatment with complete histopathologic response. Background: Patients with LAEC may obtain excellent local-regional response to multimodality therapy. The overall benefit of a complete histopathologic response, when no viable tumor is present in the surgical specimen, is incompletely understood and existing data are limited to single-center studies with relatively few patients. The aim of this multicenter study was to define the outcome of patients with complete histopathologic response after multimodality therapy for LAEC. Methods: The study population included 299 patients (229 male, 70 female; median age: 60 years) with LAEC (cT2N1M0, T3-4N0-1M0; 181 adenocarcinomas, 118 squamous carcinomas) who underwent either neoadjuvant radiochemotherapy (n = 284) or chemotherapy (n = 15) followed by esophagectomy at 6 specialized centers: Europe (3) and United States (3). All patients in the study had stage ypT0N0M0R0 after resection. Results: Esophagectomy with thoracotomy (n = 255) was more frequent than with a transhiatal approach (n = 44). The median number of analyzed lymph nodes in the surgical specimens was 20 (minimum-maximum: 1-77). Thirty-day mortality rate was 2.4% and 90-day mortality rate was 5.7%. Overall 5-year survival rate was 55%. The disease-specific 5-year survival rate was 68%, with a recurrence rate of 23.4% (n = 70; local vs distant recurrence: 3.3% vs 20.1%). Cox regression analysis identified age as the only independent predictor of survival, whereas gender, histology, type of esophagectomy, type of neoadjuvant therapy, and the number of resected lymph nodes had no prognostic impact. Conclusion: Patients with histopathologic complete response at the time of resection of LAEC achieve excellent survival.

Published
2010

33. Lung Donor Selection and Management

Author

Van Raemdonck, D., primary, Neyrinck, A., additional, Verleden, G. M., additional, Dupont, L., additional, Coosemans, W., additional, Decaluwe, H., additional, Decker, G., additional, De Leyn, P., additional, Nafteux, P., additional, and Lerut, T., additional

Published
2009
Full Text
View/download PDF

35. Curative management of adenocarcinoma of the oesophagus and oesogastric junction--current recommendations of the Belgian Working Group.

Author

Van Laethem, Jean-Luc, Baert, Filip, Buset, Michel, de Hemptine, B, De Ronde, T, Honoré, Pierre, Lerut, T, Scaillet, P., Van Cutsem, Eric, Belgian Working Group, Van Laethem, Jean-Luc, Baert, Filip, Buset, Michel, de Hemptine, B, De Ronde, T, Honoré, Pierre, Lerut, T, Scaillet, P., Van Cutsem, Eric, and Belgian Working Group

Abstract

Guideline, Journal Article, Practice Guideline, info:eu-repo/semantics/published

Published
2000

Catalog

Books, media, physical & digital resources
See catalog results