Search

Background Complex surgical procedures such as esophagectomy and gastrectomy for cancer are associated with substantial morbidity and mortality. The purpose of this study was to evaluate trends in postoperative morbidity, mortality, and associated failure-to-rescue (FTR), in patients who underwent a potentially curative resection for esophageal or gastric cancer in the Netherlands, and to investigate differences between the two groups. Methods All patients with esophageal or gastric cancer who underwent a potentially curative resection, registered in the Dutch Upper GI Cancer Audit (DUCA) between 2011 and 2014, were included. Primary outcomes were (major) postoperative complications, postoperative mortality and FTR. To investigate groups' effect on the outcomes of interest a mixed model was used. Results Overall, 2644 patients with esophageal cancer and 1584 patients with gastric cancer were included in this study. In patients with gastric cancer, postoperative mortality (7.7% in 2011 vs. 3.8% in 2014) and FTR (38% in 2011 and 19% in 2014) decreased significantly over the years. The adjusted risk of developing a major postoperative complication was lower (OR 0.54; 95% CI 0.42–0.70), but the risk of FTR was higher (OR 1.85; 95% CI 1.05–3.27) in patients with gastric cancer compared to patients with esophageal cancer. Conclusion Once a postoperative complication occurred, patients with gastric cancer were more likely to die compared to patients with esophageal cancer. Underlying mechanisms like patient selection, and differences in structure and organization of care should be investigated. Next to morbidity and mortality, failure-to-rescue should be considered as an important outcome measure after esophagogastric cancer resections. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: Diabetes results from a deficiency of functional beta-cells due to both an increase in beta-cell death and an inhibition of beta-cell replication. The molecular mechanisms responsible for these effects in susceptible individuals are mostly unknown. The objective of this study was to determine whether a gene critical for cell division and cell survival in cancer cells, survivin, might also be important for beta-cells.Research Design and Methods: We generated mice harboring a conditional deletion of survivin in pancreatic endocrine cells using mice with a Pax-6-Cre transgene promoter construct driving tissue-specific expression of Cre-recombinase in these cells. We performed metabolic studies and immunohistochemical analyses to determine the effects of a mono- and biallelic deletion of survivin.Results: Selective deletion of survivin in pancreatic endocrine cells in the mouse had no discernible effects during embryogenesis but was associated with striking decreases in beta-cell number after birth, leading to hyperglycemia and early-onset diabetes by 4 weeks of age. Serum insulin levels were significantly decreased in animals lacking endocrine cell survivin, with relative stability of other hormones. Exogenous expression of survivin in mature beta-cells lacking endogenous survivin completely rescued the hyperglycemic phenotype and the decrease in beta-cell mass, confirming the specificity of the survivin effect in these cells.Conclusions: Our findings implicate survivin in the maintenance of beta-cell mass through both replication and antiapoptotic mechanisms. Given the widespread involvement of survivin in cancer, a novel role for survivin may well be exploited in beta-cell regulation in diseased states, such as diabetes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Comparing outcomes across hospitals to learn from best performing hospitals can be valuable. However, reliably identifying best performance is challenging. This study assesses the possibility to distinguish best performing hospitals on single outcomes and consistency of performance on different outcomes., Methods: Data were derived from the Dutch ColoRectal Audit 2013-2015. Outcomes considered were textbook outcome (colon), (circumferential) resection margins, (serious) complications, mortality, and 'failure to rescue'. To include uncertainty in rankings, random effect logistic regression models were used to calculate expected ranks (ERs), for each hospital and outcome. Rankability was calculated for each outcome, as a measure of reliability of ranking. Furthermore, correlation between ERs on different outcomes was assessed. Correlation was considered weak <0.40, moderate between 0.40 - 0.59 and strong >0.60., Results: The study included 32 143 patients; of whom 11 373 were treated in 2015 across 84 hospitals, 8181 colon and 3192 rectal cancer patients. In this one-year period 'Postoperative complications' had the highest rankability for colon (57%) and rectal (41%) surgery. No (group of) hospital(s) had the highest ER(s) on all outcomes. Correlation between ERs of outcomes was moderate in 2 (of 25) and strong in 4 (of 25) combinations. Rankability of colorectal mortality increased from 14% in 2015 to 35% when data over 2013-2015 were used., Conclusion: The highest reliability of identifying best performance based on an outcome was 57%. However, the balance between reliability and relevance of outcomes is vulnerable. No (group of) hospital(s) could be identified as best performer on all outcomes. Performance was not consistent on outcomes., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest None of the authors have anything to disclose., (Copyright © 2020. Published by Elsevier Ltd.)

Objectives: Hospital variation in risk-adjusted outcomes after colorectal cancer surgery has been shown. However, explanatory factors are not sufficiently clear. The objective of this study was to identify factors perceived by gastrointestinal surgeons as important to achieve excellent casemix-adjusted outcomes after colorectal cancer surgery., Design: Based on literature and experts' opinion, 86 factors associated with serious complications, failure to rescue and mortality were listed. These were presented to gastrointestinal surgeons through two web-based surveys and an expert meeting. Participants were asked to choose their top 10 of most important factors., Participants: Dutch gastrointestinal surgeons (n=52) of different hospitals and different hospital types (general/teaching/academic)., Results: Of 31 invited experts for the first survey and meeting, 71% responded. Of 130 invited surgeons, 34 responded to the second survey. Factors deemed important were: procedural hospital volume (46% in top 10), specialised surgeons performing surgery, (elective 87%, emergency 60% and reoperations 62% in top 10), accessibility of, and daily ward rounds by specialised surgeons (41% and 38% in top 10), preoperative screening for malnutrition (57% in top 10), a protocol for recognition of anastomotic leakage and rapid reintervention (54% and 49% in top 10)., Conclusion: Procedural hospital volume, specialisation of surgeons, screening for malnutrition, early recognition of complications followed by rapid action were perceived as most important factors to achieve good outcomes by gastrointestinal surgeons., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2019. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Background: Volume-outcome associations for complex surgical procedures have motivated centralization of care worldwide. The aim of this study was to investigate the association between overall hospital experience with complex upper gastrointestinal (GI) cancer resections and outcomes after gastric cancer surgery., Methods: Data on all patients (n = 4837) who underwent a resection for non metastatic invasive gastric cancer between 2005 and 2014 were obtained from the Netherlands Cancer Registry (NCR). Annual hospital volume categories were based on the combined volume of gastrectomies, esophagectomies, and pancreatectomies (composite hospital volume). Volume-outcome analyses were performed for lymph node yield, 30-day mortality, and overall survival., Results: The proportion of gastric cancer resections performed in hospitals with an annual composite hospital volume of ≥40 upper GI cancer resections increased from 6% in 2005 to 80% in 2014. A higher composite hospital volume was univariably associated with a higher lymph node yield, lower 30-day mortality, and increased overall survival. Statistical significance was lost after adjusting for case mix. But, sub group analysis including only elderly patients (≥75 years) showed a significant association between composite hospital volume and 30-day mortality., Conclusion: In the Netherlands, an increasing proportion of gastric cancer resections is performed in hospitals with a high composite hospital volume of gastric, esophageal, and pancreatic cancer resections. Special attention is warranted to referral of elderly patients, as these patients might specifically benefit from this centralization., (© 2017 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.)

Unlabelled: This population-based study evaluates the association between hospital volume and CRM (circumferential resection margin) involvement, adjusted for other confounders, in rectal cancer surgery. A low hospital volume (<20 cases/year) was independently associated with a higher risk of CRM involvement (odds ratio=1.54; 95% CI: 1.12-2.11)., Objective: To evaluate the association between hospital volume and CRM (circumferential resection margin) involvement in rectal cancer surgery., Background: To guarantee the quality of surgical treatment of rectal cancer, the Association of Surgeons of the Netherlands has stated a minimal annual volume standard of 20 procedures per hospital. The influence of hospital volume has been examined for different outcome variables in rectal cancer surgery. Its influence on the pathological outcome (CRM) however remains unclear. As long-term outcomes are best predicted by the CRM status, this parameter is of essential importance in the debate on the justification of minimal volume standards in rectal cancer surgery., Methods: Data from the Dutch Surgical Colorectal Audit (2011-2012) were used. Hospital volume was divided into 3 groups, and baseline characteristics were described. The influence of hospital volume on CRM involvement was analyzed, in a multivariate model, between low- and high-volume hospitals, according to the minimal volume standards., Results: This study included 5161 patients. CRM was recorded in 86% of patients. CRM involvement was 11% in low-volume group versus 7.7% and 7.9% in the medium- and high-volume group (P≤0.001). After adjustment for relevant confounders, the influence of hospital volume on CRM involvement was still significant odds ratio (OR) = 1.54; 95% CI: 1.12-2.11)., Conclusions: The outcomes of this pooled analysis support minimal volume standards in rectal cancer surgery. Low hospital volume was independently associated with a higher risk of CRM involvement (OR = 1.54; 95% CI: 1.12-2.11).