Postoperative outcomes in oesophagectomy with trainee involvement

BACKGROUND: The complexity of oesophageal surgery and the significant risk of morbidity necessitates that oesophagectomy is predominantly performed by a consultant surgeon, or a senior trainee under their supervision. The aim of this study was to determine the impact of trainee involvement in oesophagectomy on postoperative outcomes in an international multicentre setting. METHODS: Data from the multicentre Oesophago-Gastric Anastomosis Study Group (OGAA) cohort study were analysed, which comprised prospectively collected data from patients undergoing oesophagectomy for oesophageal cancer between April 2018 and December 2018. Procedures were grouped by the level of trainee involvement, and univariable and multivariable analyses were performed to compare patient outcomes across groups. RESULTS: Of 2232 oesophagectomies from 137 centres in 41 countries, trainees were involved in 29.1 per cent of them (n = 650), performing only the abdominal phase in 230, only the chest and/or neck phases in 130, and all phases in 315 procedures. For procedures with a chest anastomosis, those with trainee involvement had similar 90-day mortality, complication and reoperation rates to consultant-performed oesophagectomies (P = 0.451, P = 0.318, and P = 0.382, respectively), while anastomotic leak rates were significantly lower in the trainee groups (P = 0.030). Procedures with a neck anastomosis had equivalent complication, anastomotic leak, and reoperation rates (P = 0.150, P = 0.430, and P = 0.632, respectively) in trainee-involved versus consultant-performed oesophagectomies, with significantly lower 90-day mortality in the trainee groups (P = 0.005). CONCLUSION: Trainee involvement was not found to be associated with significantly inferior postoperative outcomes for selected patients undergoing oesophagectomy. The results support continued supervised trainee involvement in oesophageal cancer surgery

Predictors of anastomotic leak and conduit necrosis after oesophagectomy: Results from the oesophago-gastric anastomosis audit (OGAA)

BACKGROUND: Both anastomotic leak (AL) and conduit necrosis (CN) after oesophagectomy are associated with high morbidity and mortality. Therefore, the identification of preoperative, modifiable risk factors is desirable. The aim of this study was to generate a risk scoring model for AL and CN after oesophagectomy.METHODS: Patients undergoing curative resection for oesophageal cancer were identified from the international Oesophagogastric Anastomosis Audit (OGAA) from April 2018-December 2018. Definitions for AL and CN were those set out by the Oesophageal Complications Consensus Group. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed to identify risk factors for both AL and CN. A risk score was then produced for both AL and CN using the derivation set, then internally validated using the validation set.RESULTS: This study included 2247 oesophagectomies across 137 hospitals in 41 countries. The AL rate was 14.2% and CN rate was 2.7%. Preoperative factors that were independent predictors of AL were cardiovascular comorbidity and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. The risk scoring model showed insufficient predictive ability in internal validation (area under the receiver-operating-characteristic curve [AUROC] = 0.618). Preoperative factors that were independent predictors of CN were: body mass index, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status, previous myocardial infarction and smoking history. These were converted into a risk-scoring model and internally validated using the validation set with an AUROC of 0.775.CONCLUSION: Despite a large dataset, AL proves difficult to predict using preoperative factors. The risk-scoring model for CN provides an internally validated tool to estimate a patient's risk preoperatively.</p

Pancreatic cancer survival in central and northern Denmark from 1998 through 2009: a population-based cohort study

Deirdre P Cronin-Fenton1, Rune Erichsen1, Frank V Mortensen2, Sarunas Dikinis3, Mette N&amp;oslash;rgaard1, Jacob Jacobsen11Department of Clinical Epidemiology, Aarhus University Hospital, Denmark; 2Department of Gastrointestinal Surgery L, Aarhus University Hospital, Denmark; 3Department of Gastrointestinal Surgery A, Aalborg Hospital, Aarhus University Hospital, DenmarkObjectives: Pancreatic cancer has a relatively low incidence but ranks fourth among cancer-related deaths in western countries. In Denmark, cancer survival generally is lower than in other countries with comparable health care systems. As a result, in 2000, a national strategy to improve cancer survival was introduced. Here we examine time trends in survival and relative mortality among pancreatic cancer patients, using Danish population and medical databases.Methods: Using the Danish National Patient Registry (DNPR), we identified all incident pancreatic cancer patients (n = 2968) diagnosed between 1998 and 2009 in the Central and North Denmark Regions. We computed the 1-, 3-, and 5-year survival and relative mortality (MRR) and associated 95% confidence intervals (CI) adjusting for age and gender. Among surgical patients, we also computed 30-day mortality and 30-day MRR.Results: Median age at diagnosis was approximately 71 years. The annual number of patients increased from 189 in 1998&amp;ndash;2000 to 302 in 2007&amp;ndash;2009. There was a slight improvement in 1-, 3-, and 5-year survival over time from 14.8% to 17.7%; 3.5% to a predicted 5.6%; and from 2.0% to a predicted 3.8%, from 1998&amp;ndash;2000 to 2007&amp;ndash;2009, respectively. Correspondingly, the adjusted relative mortality decreased from 1998&amp;ndash;2000 to 2007&amp;ndash;2009. Thirty-day post-operative mortality decreased from 12.2% in 1998&amp;ndash;2000 to 5.8% in 2007&amp;ndash;2009, corresponding to a 30-day MRR of 0.38, 95% CI = 0.09, 1.6 in 2007&amp;ndash;2009.Conclusion: There was a slight, albeit modest, improvement in survival and relative mortality in pancreatic cancer patients between 1998 and 2009. As we lacked staging information, it is not clear if this improvement is attributable to earlier stage at diagnosis. However, these improvements likely reflect the national cancer strategy which aimed to centralize cancer services and involved the introduction of palliative and adjuvant chemotherapy for pancreatic cancer in Denmark. The dismal prognosis of pancreatic cancer means that efforts to improve survival need to be intensified.Keywords: pancreatic cancer, survival, relative mortality, epidemiolog

Clinically decisive (dis)agreement in multidisciplinary team assessment of esophageal squamous cell carcinoma; a prospective, national, multicenter study

Background: Decisions regarding tumor staging, operability, resectability, and treatment strategy in patients with esophageal cancer are made at multidisciplinary team (MDT) conferences. We aimed to assess interobserver agreement from four national MDT conferences and whether this would have a clinical impact. Methods: A total of 20 patients with esophageal cancer were included across all four upper gastrointestinal (GI) cancer centers. Fully anonymized patient data were distributed among the MDT conferences which decided on TNM category, resectability, operability, curability, and treatment strategy blinded to each other’s decisions. The interobserver agreement was expressed as both the raw observer agreement and with Krippendorff’s α values. Finally, a case-by-case evaluation was performed to determine if disagreement would have had a clinical impact. Results: A total of 80 MDT evaluations were available for analysis. A moderate to near-perfect observer agreement of 79.2%, 55.8%, and 82.5% for TNM category was observed, respectively. Substantial agreement for resectability and moderate agreement for curability were found. However, an only fair agreement was observed for the operability category. The treatment strategies had a slight agreement which corresponded to disagreement having a clinical impact in 12 patients. Conclusions: Esophageal cancer MDT conferences had an acceptable interobserver agreement on resectability and TM categories; however, the operability assessment had a high level of disagreement. Consequently, the agreement on treatment strategy was reduced with a potential clinical impact. In future MDT conferences, emphasis should be on prioritizing the relevant information being readily available (operability, T &amp; M categories) to minimize the risk of disagreement in the assessments and treatment strategies, and thus, delayed or suboptimal treatment.</p