| 1. |
- Bahadoer, Renu R., et al.
(författare)
-
One-year excess mortality and treatment in surgically treated patients with colorectal cancer : A EURECCA European comparison
- 2021
-
Ingår i: European Journal of Surgical Oncology. - : Elsevier. - 0748-7983 .- 1532-2157. ; 47:7, s. 1651-1660
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background: Mortality in the first postoperative year represents an accurate reflection of the perioperative risk after colorectal cancer surgery. This research compares one-year mortality after surgery divided into three age-categories (18-64, 65-74, ≥75 years), focusing on time trends and comparing treatment strategies.Material: Population-based data of all patients diagnosed and treated surgically for stage I-III primary colorectal cancer from 2007 to 2016, were collected from Belgium, the Netherlands, Norway, and Sweden. Stratified for age-category and stage, treatment was evaluated, and 30-day, one-year and one-year excess mortality were calculated for colon and rectal cancer separately. Results were evaluated over two-year time periods.Results: Data of 206,024 patients were analysed. Postoperative 30-day and one-year mortality reduced significantly over time in all countries and age-categories. Within the oldest age category, in 2015–2016, one-year excess mortality varied from 9% in Belgium to 4% in Sweden for colon cancer and, from 9% in Belgium to 3% in the other countries for rectal cancer. With increasing age, patients were less likely to receive additional therapy besides surgery. In Belgium, colon cancer patients were more often treated with adjuvant chemotherapy (p < 0.001). For neoadjuvant treatment of rectal cancer, patients in Belgium and Norway were mostly treated with chemoradiotherapy. In the Netherlands and Sweden, radiotherapy alone was preferred (p < 0.001).Conclusions: Despite improvement over time in all countries and age-categories, substantial variation exists in one-year postoperative mortality. Differences in one-year excess postoperative mortality could be due to differences in treatment strategies, highlighting the consequences of under- and over-treatment on cancer survival.
|
|
| 2. |
- Bahadoer, Renu R., et al.
(författare)
-
The survival gap between young and older patients after surgical resection for colorectal cancer remains largely based on early mortality : A EURECCA comparison of four European countries
- 2022
-
Ingår i: Journal of Geriatric Oncology. - : Elsevier. - 1879-4068 .- 1879-4076. ; 13:6, s. 803-812
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background: A decade ago, it was demonstrated that the difference in survival between older patients and younger patients with colorectal cancer (CRC) was mainly due to mortality in the first postoperative year. Over the last few years, improvements - especially in perioperative care - have increased survival. The current research investigates whether a survival gap between younger and older patients with CRC still exists on a national level in four European countries.Methods: Population-based data from Belgium, the Netherlands, Norway, and Sweden were collected from patients that underwent surgical resection for primary stage I-III CRC between 2007 and 2016. Relative survival and conditional relative survival (CS), with the condition of surviving the first postoperative year, were calculated for colon and rectal cancer separately, stratified for country and age category (<65, 65–75, ≥75 years). In addition, relative excess risk of death (RER) was estimated, and one-year excess mortality was calculated.Results: Data of 206,024 patients were analyzed. In general, compared to patients <65 years, patients ≥75 years had a worse survival during the first year after surgery, which was most pronounced in Belgium (RER colon cancer 2.5 [95% confidence interval (CI) 2.3–2.8] and RER rectal cancer 2.6 [95% CI 2.3–2.9]). After surviving the first year, CS was mostly not statistically different between patients <65 years and patients ≥75 years with stage I-II, with the exception of stage II colon cancer in Belgium. However, CS remained worse in the largest part of the patients ≥75 years with stage III colon or rectal cancer (except for rectal cancer in Norway).Conclusions: Although differences exist between the countries, the survival gap between young and older patients is based mainly on early mortality and remains only for stage III disease after surviving the first year.
|
|
| 3. |
- Nilbert, Mef, et al.
(författare)
-
The power of empirical data; lessons from the clinical registry initiatives in Scandinavian cancer care
- 2020
-
Ingår i: Acta Oncologica. - 0284-186X. ; 59:11, s. 1343-1356
-
Forskningsöversikt (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background: In Scandinavia, there is a strong tradition for research and quality monitoring based on registry data. In Denmark, Norway and Sweden, 63 clinical registries collect data on disease characteristics, treatment and outcome of various cancer diagnoses and groups based on process-related and outcome-related variables. Aim: We describe the cancer-related clinical registries, compare organizational structures and quality indicators and provide examples of how these registries have been used to monitor clinical performance, develop prediction models, assess outcome and provide quality benchmarks. Further, we define unmet needs such as inclusion of patient-reported outcome variables, harmonization of variables and barriers for data sharing. Results and conclusions: The clinical registry framework provides an empirical basis for evidence-based development of high-quality and equitable cancer care. The registries can be used to follow implementation of new treatment principles and monitor patterns of care across geographical areas and patient groups. At the same time, the lessons learnt suggest that further developments and coordination are needed to utilize the full potential of the registry initiative in cancer care.
|
|
| 4. |
- Osterman, Erik, et al.
(författare)
-
Accurate population-based model for individual prediction of colon cancer recurrence
- 2021
-
Ingår i: Acta Oncologica. - : Taylor & Francis. - 0284-186X .- 1651-226X. ; 60:10, s. 1241-1249
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background: Prediction models are useful tools in the clinical management of colon cancer patients, particularly when estimating the recurrence rate and, thus, the need for adjuvant treatment. However, the most used models (MSKCC, ACCENT) are based on several decades-old patient series from clinical trials, likely overestimating the current risk of recurrence, especially in low-risk groups, as outcomes have improved over time. The aim was to develop and validate an updated model for the prediction of recurrence within 5 years after surgery using routinely collected clinicopathologic variables.Material and methods: A population-based cohort from the Swedish Colorectal Cancer Registry of 16,134 stage I–III colon cancer cases was used. A multivariable model was constructed using Cox proportional hazards regression. Three-quarters of the cases were used for model development and one quarter for internal validation. External validation was performed using 12,769 stage II–III patients from the Norwegian Colorectal Cancer Registry. The model was compared to previous nomograms.Results: The nomogram consisted of eight variables: sex, sidedness, pT-substages, number of positive and found lymph nodes, emergency surgery, lymphovascular and perineural invasion. The area under the curve (AUC) was 0.78 in the model, 0.76 in internal validation, and 0.70 in external validation. The model calibrated well, especially in low-risk patients, and performed better than existing nomograms in the Swedish registry data. The new nomogram’s AUC was equal to that of the MSKCC but the calibration was better.Conclusion: The nomogram based on recently operated patients from a population registry predicts recurrence risk more accurately than previous nomograms. It performs best in the low-risk groups where the risk-benefit ratio of adjuvant treatment is debatable and the need for an accurate prediction model is the largest.
|
|
| 5. |
- Schultz, Johannes Kurt, et al.
(författare)
-
Laparoscopic Lavage vs Primary Resection for Acute Perforated Diverticulitis : The SCANDIV Randomized Clinical Trial
- 2015
-
Ingår i: Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA). - : American Medical Association (AMA). - 0098-7484 .- 1538-3598. ; 314:13, s. 1364-1375
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- IMPORTANCE: Perforated colonic diverticulitis usually requires surgical resection, which is associated with significant morbidity. Cohort studies have suggested that laparoscopic lavage may treat perforated diverticulitis with less morbidity than resection procedures.OBJECTIVE: To compare the outcomes from laparoscopic lavage with those for colon resection for perforated diverticulitis.DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Multicenter, randomized clinical superiority trial recruiting participants from 21 centers in Sweden and Norway from February 2010 to June 2014. The last patient follow-up was in December 2014 and final review and verification of the medical records was assessed in March 2015. Patients with suspected perforated diverticulitis, a clinical indication for emergency surgery, and free air on an abdominal computed tomography scan were eligible. Of 509 patients screened, 415 were eligible and 199 were enrolled.INTERVENTIONS: Patients were assigned to undergo laparoscopic peritoneal lavage (n = 101) or colon resection (n = 98) based on a computer-generated, center-stratified block randomization. All patients with fecal peritonitis (15 patients in the laparoscopic peritoneal lavage group vs 13 in the colon resection group) underwent colon resection. Patients with a pathology requiring treatment beyond that necessary for perforated diverticulitis (12 in the laparoscopic lavage group vs 13 in the colon resection group) were also excluded from the protocol operations and treated as required for the pathology encountered.MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The primary outcome was severe postoperative complications (Clavien-Dindo score >IIIa) within 90 days. Secondary outcomes included other postoperative complications, reoperations, length of operating time, length of postoperative hospital stay, and quality of life.RESULTS: The primary outcome was observed in 31 of 101 patients (30.7%) in the laparoscopic lavage group and 25 of 96 patients (26.0%) in the colon resection group (difference, 4.7% [95% CI, -7.9% to 17.0%]; P = .53). Mortality at 90 days did not significantly differ between the laparoscopic lavage group (14 patients [13.9%]) and the colon resection group (11 patients [11.5%]; difference, 2.4% [95% CI, -7.2% to 11.9%]; P = .67). The reoperation rate was significantly higher in the laparoscopic lavage group (15 of 74 patients [20.3%]) than in the colon resection group (4 of 70 patients [5.7%]; difference, 14.6% [95% CI, 3.5% to 25.6%]; P = .01) for patients who did not have fecal peritonitis. The length of operating time was significantly shorter in the laparoscopic lavage group; whereas, length of postoperative hospital stay and quality of life did not differ significantly between groups. Four sigmoid carcinomas were missed with laparoscopic lavage.CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Among patients with likely perforated diverticulitis and undergoing emergency surgery, the use of laparoscopic lavage vs primary resection did not reduce severe postoperative complications and led to worse outcomes in secondary end points. These findings do not support laparoscopic lavage for treatment of perforated diverticulitis.TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01047462.
|
|
