Search

Contains fulltext : 292756.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Open Access), BACKGROUND: Centralization of pancreatic cancer surgery aims to improve postoperative outcomes. Consequently, patients with pancreatic cancer may undergo pancreatic surgery in an expert centre and adjuvant chemotherapy in a local hospital (network treatment). The aim of this study was to assess whether network treatment has an impact on time to chemotherapy, failure to complete adjuvant chemotherapy, and survival. Second, whether these parameters varied between pancreatic networks was studied. METHODS: This retrospective study included all patients diagnosed with non-metastatic pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma who underwent pancreatic surgery and adjuvant chemotherapy, registered in the Netherlands Cancer Registry (2015-2020). Time to chemotherapy was defined as the time between surgery and the start of adjuvant chemotherapy. Completion of adjuvant chemotherapy was defined as the receipt of 12 cycles of FOLFIRINOX or six cycles of gemcitabine. Analysis was performed with linear mixed models and multilevel logistic regression models. Cox regression analyses were performed for survival. RESULTS: In total, 1074 patients were included. Network treatment was observed in 468 patients (43.6 per cent) and was not associated with longer time to chemotherapy (0.77 days, standard error (s.e.) 1.14, P = 0.501), failure to complete adjuvant chemotherapy (odds ratio (OR) = 1.140, 95 per cent c.i. 0.86 to 1.52, P = 0.349), and overall survival (hazards ratio (HR) = 1.04, 95 per cent c.i. 0.88 to 1.22, P = 0.640). Significant variation between the networks was observed for time to chemotherapy (range 40.5-63 days, P < 0.0001) and completion of adjuvant chemotherapy (range 19-52 per cent, P = 0.030). Adjusted for case mix, time to chemotherapy significantly differed between networks. CONCLUSION: In this nationwide analysis, network treatment in patients with resected pancreatic cancer was not associated with longer time to chemotherapy, failure to complete adjuvant chemotherapy, and

Item does not contain fulltext, OBJECTIVE: To investigate if dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase phenotyping has added value when combined with DPYD genotyping in predicting fluoropyrimidine-related toxicity. METHODS: Retrospective cohort study in which treatment and toxicity data were collected of 228 patients genotyped for four DPYD variants and phenotyped using an ex vivo peripheral blood mononuclear cell assay. RESULTS: Severe toxicity occurred in 25% of patients with a variant and normal dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase activity, in 21% of patients without a variant and with decreased dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase activity, and in 29% of patients without a variant and with normal dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase activity (controls). The majority of patients with a variant or a decreased dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase activity received an initial dose reduction (68% and 53% vs 19% in controls) and had a lower mean dose intensity (75% and 81% vs 91% in controls). Fifty percent of patients with a variant and decreased enzyme activity experienced severe toxicity, despite the lowest initial dose and whole treatment dose intensity. They also experienced more grade 4/5 toxicities. CONCLUSIONS: Our results indicate that a combined genotype-phenotype approach could be useful to identify patients at increased risk for fluoropyrimidine-associated toxicity (e.g. patients with a variant and decreased dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase activity). Because the group sizes are too small to demonstrate statistically significant differences, this warrants further research in a prospective study in a larger cohort.

Contains fulltext : 296077.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Open Access), PURPOSE: To compare transarterial chemoembolization delivered with drug eluting beads (TACE-DEB) with stereotactioc body radiation therapy (SBRT) in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in a multicenter randomized trial. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Patients were included if they were eligible for TACE. They could also be recruited if they required treatment prior to liver transplantation. A maximum of four TACE-DEB procedures and ablation after incomplete TACE-DEB were both allowed. SBRT was delivered in six fractions of 8-9Gy. Primary end point was time to progression (TTP). Secondary endpoints were local control (LC), overall survival (OS), response rate (RR), toxicity, and quality of life (QoL). The calculated sample size was 100 patients. RESULTS: Between May 2015 and April 2020, 30 patients were randomized to the study. Due to slow accrual the trial was closed prematurely. Two patients in the SBRT arm were considered ineligible leaving 16 patients in the TACE-DEB arm and 12 in the SBRT arm. Median follow-up was 28.1 months. Median TTP was 12 months for TACEDEB and 19 months for SBRT (p=0.15). Median LC was 12 months for TACE-DEB and >40 months (not reached) for SBRT (p=0.075). Median OS was 36.8 months for TACEDEB and 44.1 months for SBRT (p=0.36). A post-hoc analysis showed 100% for SBRT 1- and 2-year LC, and 54.4% and 43.6% for TACE-DEB (p=0.019). Both treatments resulted in RR>80%. Three episodes of possibly related toxicity grade ≥3 were observed after TACE-DEB. No episodes were observed after SBRT. QoL remained stable after both treatment arms. CONCLUSIONS: In this trial, TTP after TACE-DEB was not significantly improved by SBRT, while SBRT showed higher local antitumoral activity than TACE-DEB, without detrimental effects on OS, toxicity and QoL. To overcome poor accrual in randomized trials that include SBRT, and to generate evidence for including SBRT in treatment guidelines, international cooperation is needed.

Contains fulltext : 296781.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Open Access), BACKGROUND: Practice variation exists in venous resection during pancreatoduodenectomy, but little is known about the potential causes and consequences as large studies are lacking. This study explores the potential causes and consequences of practice variation in venous resection during pancreatoduodenectomy for pancreatic cancer in the Netherlands. METHODS: This nationwide retrospective cohort study included patients undergoing pancreatoduodenectomy for pancreatic cancer in 18 centers from 2013 through 2017. RESULTS: Among 1,311 patients undergoing pancreatoduodenectomy, 351 (27%) had a venous resection, and the overall median annual center volume of venous resection was 4. No association was found between the center volume of pancreatoduodenectomy and the rate of venous resections, nor between patient and tumor characteristics and the rate of venous resections per center. Female sex, lower body mass index, neoadjuvant therapy, venous involvement, and stenosis on imaging were predictive for venous resection. Adjusted for these factors, 3 centers performed significantly more, and 3 centers performed significantly fewer venous resections than expected. In patients with venous resection, significantly less major morbidity (22% vs 38%) and longer overall survival (median 16 vs 12 months) were observed in centers with an above-median annual volume of venous resections (>4). CONCLUSION: Patient and tumor characteristics did not explain significant practice variation between centers in the Netherlands in venous resection during pancreatoduodenectomy for pancreatic cancer. The clinical outcomes of venous resection might be related to the volume of the procedure.

Contains fulltext : 300238.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Open Access), BACKGROUND: Due to centralization of pancreatic surgery, patients with pancreatic cancer are treated in pancreatic cancer networks, composed of referring hospitals (Spokes) and an expert center (Hub). This study aimed to investigate I) how pancreatic cancer networks are organized and II) evaluated by involved clinicians. METHODS: Two online surveys were sent out between January-May 2022. Part I was sent out to the surgical network directors of all hospitals of the Dutch Pancreatic Cancer Group (DPCG). Part II was sent out to all involved clinicians in the Hubs-and-Spokes networks. RESULTS: There was a large variety between the 15 networks concerning number of affiliated Spokes (1-7), annual pancreatoduodenectomies (20-129), and use of a service level agreement (SLA) (40%). More Spoke clinicians considered the Spoke the best location for diagnostic workup (74% vs 36%, P < 0.001). Only 30% of Spoke clinicians attended the Hubs multidisciplinary team meeting frequently. More Hub clinicians thought that exchange of patient information should be improved (37% vs 51%, P = 0.005). CONCLUSION: A large variety in Dutch pancreatic cancer networks was observed concerning number of affiliated Spokes, use of SLAs, and logistic aspects of network care. Improvement of network care concern agreements on diagnostic workup, use of SLA, Spoke participation in the MDT, and patient information exchange., 01 december 2023

Contains fulltext : 296927.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Open Access), BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has put substantial strain on the healthcare system of which the effects are only partly elucidated. This study aimed to investigate the impact on pancreatic cancer care. METHODS: All patients diagnosed with pancreatic cancer between 2017 and 2020 were selected from the Netherlands Cancer Registry. Patients diagnosed and/or treated in 2020 were compared to 2017-2019. Monthly incidence was calculated. Patient, tumor and treatment characteristics were analyzed and compared using Chi-squared tests. Survival data was analyzed using Kaplan-Meier and Log-rank tests. RESULTS: In total, 11019 patients were assessed. The incidence in quarter (Q)2 of 2020 was comparable with that in Q2 of 2017-2019 (p = 0.804). However, the incidence increased in Q4 of 2020 (p = 0.031), mainly due to a higher incidence of metastatic disease (p = 0.010). Baseline characteristics, surgical resection (15% vs 16%; p = 0.466) and palliative systemic therapy rates (23% vs 24%; p = 0.183) were comparable. In 2020, more surgically treated patients received (neo)adjuvant treatment compared to 2017-2019 (73% vs 67%; p = 0.041). Median overall survival was comparable (3.8 vs 3.8 months; p = 0.065). CONCLUSION: This nationwide study found a minor impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on pancreatic cancer care and outcome. The Dutch health care system was apparently able to maintain essential care for patients with pancreatic cancer.

Contains fulltext : 283856.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Open Access)

Item does not contain fulltext, BACKGROUND: Due to the centralization of pancreatic surgery, patients with suspected pancreatic cancer may undergo diagnostic workup in both a non-pancreatic centre and a pancreatic centre, i.e. multicentre workup. This retrospective study assessed whether multicentre diagnostic workup is associated with repeated diagnostics, delayed time-to-diagnosis, delayed time-to-treatment, survival and whether variation existed among pancreatic cancer networks. METHODS: This nationwide study included all patients diagnosed with non-metastatic pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) in 2015, registered by the Netherlands Cancer Registry. A delayed time-to-diagnosis was defined as ≥3 weeks from initial hospital visit to final diagnosis. A delayed time-to-treatment was defined as ≥6 weeks from the first hospital visit to start of first tumour treatment. Multilevel logistic regression analyses and survival analyses were performed. RESULTS: In total, 931 patients with non-metastatic PDAC were included. Overall, 175 patients (19%) underwent a multicentre diagnostic workup, which was significantly associated with repeated diagnostic investigations (OR = 6.31, 95% CI 4.13-9.64, P < 0.0001), a delayed time-to-diagnosis (OR = 2.66 95% CI 1.74-4.06, P < 0.001), and a delayed time-to-treatment (OR = 1.93 95% CI 1.12-3.31, P = 0.02), but not with decreased survival (HR = 1.09 95% CI 0.83-1.44; P = 0.532). Variation in outcomes per network was observed, especially for time-to-treatment, though the ICC was not statistically significant (P = 0.065). CONCLUSION: Multicentre diagnostic workup for patients with PDAC is associated with repeated diagnostic investigations, a delayed time-to-diagnosis and delayed time-to-treatment compared to patients with monocentre workup. To reduce costs and improve treatment times, efforts should be made to improve network coordination, for example via network care pathways.

Item does not contain fulltext, BACKGROUND: Venous resection of the superior mesenteric or portal vein is increasingly performed in pancreatic cancer surgery, whereas results of studies on short- and long-term outcomes are contradictory. The aim of this study was to evaluate the impact of the type of venous resection in pancreatoduodenectomy for pancreatic cancer on postoperative morbidity and overall survival. METHODS: This nationwide retrospective cohort study included all patients who underwent pancreatoduodenectomy for pancreatic cancer in 18 centres (2013-2017). RESULTS: A total of 1311 patients were included, of whom 17 per cent underwent wedge resection and 10 per cent segmental resection. Patients with segmental resection had higher rates of major morbidity (39 versus 20 versus 23 per cent, respectively; P < 0.001) and portal or superior mesenteric vein thrombosis (18 versus 5 versus 1 per cent, respectively; P < 0.001) and worse overall survival (median 12 versus 16 versus 20 months, respectively; P < 0.001), compared to patients with wedge resection and those without venous resection. Multivariable analysis showed patients with segmental resection, but not those who had wedge resection, had higher rates of major morbidity (odds ratio = 1.93, 95 per cent c.i. 1.20 to 3.11) and worse overall survival (hazard ratio = 1.40, 95 per cent c.i. 1.10 to 1.78), compared to patients without venous resection. Among patients who received neoadjuvant therapy, there was no difference in overall survival among patients with segmental and wedge resection and those without venous resection (median 32 versus 25 versus 33 months, respectively; P = 0.470), although there was a difference in major morbidity rates (52 versus 19 versus 21 per cent, respectively; P = 0.012). CONCLUSION: In pancreatic surgery, the short- and long-term outcomes are worse in patients with venous segmental resection, compared to patients with wedge resection and those without venous resection.

Contains fulltext : 239089.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Closed access), BACKGROUND: The treatment options for patients with locally advanced pancreatic cancer (LAPC) have improved in recent years and consequently survival has increased. It is unknown, however, if elderly patients benefit from these improvements in therapy. With the ongoing aging of the patient population and an increasing incidence of pancreatic cancer, this patient group becomes more relevant. This study aims to clarify the association between increasing age, treatment and overall survival in patients with LAPC. METHODS: Post-hoc analysis of a multicenter registry including consecutive patients with LAPC, who were registered in 14 centers of the Dutch Pancreatic Cancer Group (April 2015-December 2017). Patients were divided in three groups according to age (<65, 65-74 and ≥75 years). Primary outcome was overall survival stratified by primary treatment strategy. Multivariable regression analyses were performed to adjust for possible confounders. RESULTS: Overall, 422 patients with LAPC were included; 162 patients (38%) aged <65 years, 182 patients (43%) aged 65-74 and 78 patients (19%) aged ≥75 years. Chemotherapy was administered in 86%, 81% and 50% of the patients in the different age groups (p<0.01). Median overall survival was 12, 11 and 7 months for the different age groups (p<0.01).Patients treated with chemotherapy showed comparable median overall survival of 13, 14 and 10 months for the different age groups (p=0.11). When adjusted for confounders, age was not associated with overall survival. CONCLUSION: Elderly patients are less likely to be treated with chemotherapy, but when treated with chemotherapy, their survival is comparable to younger patients.

Contains fulltext : 239066.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Open Access), BACKGROUND: Approximately 80% of patients with locally advanced pancreatic cancer (LAPC) are treated with chemotherapy, of whom approximately 10% undergo a resection. Cohort studies investigating local tumor ablation with radiofrequency ablation (RFA) have reported a promising overall survival of 26-34 months when given in a multimodal setting. However, randomized controlled trials (RCTs) investigating the effect of RFA in combination with chemotherapy in patients with LAPC are lacking. METHODS: The "Pancreatic Locally Advanced Unresectable Cancer Ablation" (PELICAN) trial is an international multicenter superiority RCT, initiated by the Dutch Pancreatic Cancer Group (DPCG). All patients with LAPC according to DPCG criteria, who start with FOLFIRINOX or (nab-paclitaxel/)gemcitabine, are screened for eligibility. Restaging is performed after completion of four cycles of FOLFIRINOX or two cycles of (nab-paclitaxel/)gemcitabine (i.e., 2 months of treatment), and the results are assessed within a nationwide online expert panel. Eligible patients with RECIST stable disease or objective response, in whom resection is not feasible, are randomized to RFA followed by chemotherapy or chemotherapy alone. In total, 228 patients will be included in 16 centers in The Netherlands and four other European centers. The primary endpoint is overall survival. Secondary endpoints include progression-free survival, RECIST response, CA 19.9 and CEA response, toxicity, quality of life, pain, costs, and immunomodulatory effects of RFA. DISCUSSION: The PELICAN RCT aims to assess whether the combination of chemotherapy and RFA improves the overall survival when compared to chemotherapy alone, in patients with LAPC with no progression of disease following 2 months of systemic treatment. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Dutch Trial Registry NL4997 . Registered on December 29, 2015. ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03690323 . Retrospectively registered on October 1, 2018.

Contains fulltext : 245999.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Open Access)

Item does not contain fulltext, BACKGROUND: Compliance with national guidelines on pancreatic cancer management could improve patient outcomes. Early compliance with the Dutch guideline was poor. The aim was to assess compliance with this guideline during six years after publication. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Nationwide guideline compliance was investigated for three subsequent time periods (2012-2013 vs. 2014-2015 vs. 2016-2017) in patients with pancreatic cancer using five quality indicators in the Netherlands Cancer Registry: 1) discussion in multidisciplinary team meeting (MDT), 2) maximum 3-week interval from final MDT to start of treatment, 3) preoperative biliary drainage when bilirubin >250 μmol/L, 4) use of adjuvant chemotherapy, and 5) chemotherapy for inoperable disease (non-metastatic and metastatic). RESULTS: In total, 14 491 patients were included of whom 2290 (15.8%) underwent resection and 4561 (31.5%) received chemotherapy. Most quality indicators did not change over time: overall, 88.8% of patients treated with curative intent were discussed in a MDT, 42.7% were treated with curative intent within the 3-week interval, 62.7% with a resectable head tumor and bilirubin >250 μmol/L underwent preoperative biliary drainage, 57.2% received chemotherapy after resection, and 36.6% with metastatic disease received chemotherapy. Only use of chemotherapy for non-metastatic, non-resected disease improved over time (23.4% vs. 25.6% vs. 29.7%). CONCLUSION: Nationwide compliance to five quality indicators for the guideline on pancreatic cancer management showed little to no improvement during six years after publication. Besides critical review of the current quality indicators, these outcomes may suggest that a nationwide implementation program is required to increase compliance to guideline recommendations.

Contains fulltext : 225263.pdf (publisher's version ) (Open Access), BACKGROUND: Pancreatic cancer has a very poor prognosis. Best practices for the use of chemotherapy, enzyme replacement therapy, and biliary drainage have been identified but their implementation in daily clinical practice is often suboptimal. We hypothesized that a nationwide program to enhance implementation of these best practices in pancreatic cancer care would improve survival and quality of life. METHODS/DESIGN: PACAP-1 is a nationwide multicenter stepped-wedge cluster randomized controlled superiority trial. In a per-center stepwise and randomized manner, best practices in pancreatic cancer care regarding the use of (neo)adjuvant and palliative chemotherapy, pancreatic enzyme replacement therapy, and metal biliary stents are implemented in all 17 Dutch pancreatic centers and their regional referral networks during a 6-week initiation period. Per pancreatic center, one multidisciplinary team functions as reference for the other centers in the network. Key best practices were identified from the literature, 3 years of data from existing nationwide registries within the Dutch Pancreatic Cancer Project (PACAP), and national expert meetings. The best practices follow the Dutch guideline on pancreatic cancer and the current state of the literature, and can be executed within daily clinical practice. The implementation process includes monitoring, return visits, and provider feedback in combination with education and reminders. Patient outcomes and compliance are monitored within the PACAP registries. Primary outcome is 1-year overall survival (for all disease stages). Secondary outcomes include quality of life, 3- and 5-year overall survival, and guideline compliance. An improvement of 10% in 1-year overall survival is considered clinically relevant. A 25-month study duration was chosen, which provides 80% statistical power for a mortality reduction of 10.0% in the 17 pancreatic cancer centers, with a required sample size of 2142 patients, corresponding to a 6.6% m

Contains fulltext : 225030.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Open Access), Background: Proximal esophageal cancer (EC) is commonly treated with definitive chemoradiation (CRT). The radiation dose and type of chemotherapy backbone are still under debate. The objective of this study was to compare the treatment outcomes of contemporary CRT regimens.Material and Methods: In this retrospective observational cohort study, we included patients with locally advanced squamous cell cancer of the proximal esophagus, from 11 centers in the Netherlands, treated with definitive CRT between 2004 and 2014. Each center had a preferential CRT regimen, based on cisplatin (Cis) or carboplatin-paclitaxel (CP) combined with low (≤50.4 Gy) or high (>50.4 Gy) dose radiotherapy (RT). Differences in overall survival (OS) between CRT regimens were assessed using a fully adjusted Cox proportional hazards and propensity score (PS) weighted model. Safety profiles were compared using a multilevel logistic regression model.Results: Two hundred patients were included. Fifty-four, 39, 95, and 12 patients were treated with Cis-low-dose RT, Cis-high-dose RT, CP-low-dose RT, and CP-high-dose RT, respectively. Median follow-up was 62.6 months (95% CI: 47.9-77.2 months). Median OS (21.9 months; 95% CI: 16.9-27.0 months) was comparable between treatment groups (logrank p = .88), confirmed in the fully adjusted and PS weighted model (p > .05). Grades 3-5 acute adverse events were less frequent in patients treated with CP-low-dose RT versus Cis-high-dose RT (OR 3.78; 95% CI: 1.31-10.87; p = .01). The occurrence of grades 3-5 late toxicities was not different between treatment groups.Conclusion: Our study was unable to demonstrate a difference in OS between the CRT regimens, probably related to the relatively small sample size. Based on the superior safety profile, carboplatin and paclitaxel-based CRT regimens are preferred in patients with locally advanced proximal EC.

Contains fulltext : 226028.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Closed access), BACKGROUND: The relation between type of postoperative complication and not receiving chemotherapy after resection of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) is unclear. The aim was to investigate which patient factors and postoperative complications were associated with not receiving adjuvant chemotherapy. METHODS: Patients who underwent resection (2014-2017) for PDAC were identified from the nationwide mandatory Dutch Pancreatic Cancer Audit. The association between patient-, tumor-, center-, treatment characteristics, and the risk of not receiving adjuvant chemotherapy was analyzed with multivariable logistic regression. RESULTS: Overall, of 1306 patients, 24% (n = 312) developed postoperative Clavien Dindo ≥3 complications. In-hospital mortality was 3.5% (n = 46). Some 433 patients (33%) did not receive adjuvant chemotherapy. Independent predictors (all p < 0.050) for not receiving adjuvant chemotherapy were older age (odds ratio (OR) 0.96), higher ECOG performance status (OR 0.57), postoperative complications (OR 0.32), especially grade B/C pancreatic fistula (OR 0.51) and post-pancreatectomy hemorrhage (OR 0.36), poor tumor differentiation grade (OR 0.62), and annual center volume of <40 pancreatoduodenectomies (OR 0.51). CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrated that a third of patients do not receive chemotherapy after resection of PDAC. Next to higher age, worse performance status and lower annual surgical volume, this is mostly related to surgical complications, especially postoperative pancreatic fistula and post-pancreatectomy hemorrhage.

Contains fulltext : 209357.pdf (publisher's version ) (Open Access)

Contains fulltext : 190895.pdf (publisher's version ) (Closed access)

Scriptie HDV 12.; Met literatuuropgave., Voor het uitvoeren van haar taken beschikt Defensie over een grote hoeveelheid, zeer divers materieel. Wapensysteemmanagement heeft als doel dit materieel op een betaalbare manier 'ready for duty' te houden. Dit is niet altijd succesvol. Defensie heeft de nodige uitdagingen in het op peil houden van haar materieel. De beschikbaarheid is vaak te laag, wat ten koste gaat van de operationele gereedheid. Hierdoor is Defensie minder goed in staat eenheden in te zetten en dus minder goed in staat haar opgedragen taken uit te voeren. Vanwege het grote aantal verschillende systemen en de beperkte capaciteit die Defensie in het wapensysteemmanagement beschikbaar heeft, is een onderverdeling gemaakt in drie categorieën systemen. De C-systemen zijn de overige systemen, die doorgaans ondersteunend zijn, zoals een aggregaat, de VW Amarok of een sleepboot. De C-systemen krijgen doorgaans het minste aandacht en dat is opvallend, want met de instandhouding is een bedrag van ruim 10 miljard Euro gemoeid. Daarom richt dit onderzoek zich ook op het wapensysteemmanagement van deze systemen.