Background: Data on the incidence and clinical relevance of gallstones in patients with suspected acute alcoholic pancreatitis are lacking and are essential to minimize the risk of recurrent acute... Show moreBackground: Data on the incidence and clinical relevance of gallstones in patients with suspected acute alcoholic pancreatitis are lacking and are essential to minimize the risk of recurrent acute pancreatitis. The aim of this study was to assess the incidence of gallstones and the associated rate of recurrent acute pancreatitis in patients with presumed acute alcoholic pancreatitis. Methods: Between 2008 and 2019, 23 hospitals prospectively enrolled patients with acute pancreatitis. Those diagnosed with their first episode of presumed acute alcoholic pancreatitis were included in this study. The term gallstones was used to describe the presence of cholelithiasis or biliary sludge found during imaging. The primary outcome was pancreatitis recurrence during 3 years of follow-up. Results: A total of 334 patients were eligible for inclusion, of whom 316 were included in the follow-up analysis. Gallstone evaluation, either during the index admission or during follow-up, was performed for 306 of 334 patients (91.6%). Gallstones were detected in 54 patients (17.6%), with a median time to detection of 6 (interquartile range 0–42) weeks. During follow-up, recurrent acute pancreatitis occurred in 121 of 316 patients (38.3%), with a significantly higher incidence rate for patients with gallstones compared with patients without gallstones (59% versus 34.2% respectively; P < 0.001), while more patients with gallstones had stopped drinking alcohol at the time of their first recurrence (41% versus 24% respectively; P = 0.020). Cholecystectomy was performed for 19 patients with gallstones (36%). The recurrence rate was lower for patients in the cholecystectomy group compared with patients who did receive inadequate treatment or no treatment (5/19 versus 19/34 respectively; P = 0.038). Conclusion: Gallstones were found in almost one in every five patients diagnosed with acute alcoholic pancreatitis. Gallstones were associated with a higher rate of recurrent pancreatitis, while undergoing cholecystectomy was associated with a reduction in this rate. Show less
Background: Treatment guidelines for splanchnic vein thrombosis in necrotizing pancreatitis are lacking due to insufficient data on the full clinical spectrum. Methods: We performed a post-hoc... Show moreBackground: Treatment guidelines for splanchnic vein thrombosis in necrotizing pancreatitis are lacking due to insufficient data on the full clinical spectrum. Methods: We performed a post-hoc analysis of a nationwide prospective necrotizing pancreatitis cohort. Multivariable analyses were used to identify risk factors and compare the clinical course of patients with and without SVT. Results: SVT was detected in 97 of the 432 included patients (22%) (median onset: 4 days). Risk factors were left, central, or subtotal necrosis (OR 28.52; 95% CI 20.11–40.45), right or diffuse necrosis (OR 5.76; 95% CI 3.89–8.51), and younger age (OR 0.94; 95% CI 0.90–0.97). Patients with SVT had higher rates of bleeding (n = 10,11%) and bowel ischemia (n = 4,4%) compared to patients without SVT (n = 14,4% and n = 2,0.6%; OR 3.24; 95% CI 1.27–8.23 and OR 7.29; 95% CI 1.31–40.4, respectively), and were independently associated with ICU admission (adjusted OR 2.53; 95% CI 1.37–4.68). Spontaneous recanalization occurred in 62% of patients (n = 40/71). Radiological and clinical outcomes did not differ between patients treated with and without anticoagulants. Discussion: SVT is a common and early complication of necrotizing pancreatitis, associated with parenchymal necrosis and younger age. SVT is associated with increased complications and a worse clinical course, whereas anticoagulant use does not appear to affect outcomes Show less
ObjectiveEndoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) is the preferred treatment for non-invasive large (>= 20 mm) non-pedunculated colorectal polyps (LNPCPs) but is associated with an early recurrence... Show moreObjectiveEndoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) is the preferred treatment for non-invasive large (>= 20 mm) non-pedunculated colorectal polyps (LNPCPs) but is associated with an early recurrence rate of up to 30%. We evaluated whether standardised EMR training could reduce recurrence rates in Dutch community hospitals.DesignIn this multicentre cluster randomised trial, 59 endoscopists from 30 hospitals were randomly assigned to the intervention group (e-learning and 2-day training including hands-on session) or control group. From April 2019 to August 2021, all consecutive EMR-treated LNPCPs were included. Primary endpoint was recurrence rate after 6 months.ResultsA total of 1412 LNPCPs were included; 699 in the intervention group and 713 in the control group (median size 30 mm vs 30 mm, 45% vs 52% size, morphology, site and access (SMSA) score IV, 64% vs 64% proximal location). Recurrence rates were lower in the intervention group compared with controls (13% vs 25%, OR 0.43; 95% CI 0.23 to 0.78; p=0.005) with similar complication rates (8% vs 9%, OR 0.93; 95% CI 0.64 to 1.36; p=0.720). Recurrences were more often unifocal in the intervention group (92% vs 76%; p=0.006). In sensitivity analysis, the benefit of the intervention on recurrence rate was only observed in the 20-40 mm LNPCPs (5% vs 20% in 20-29 mm, p=0.001; 10% vs 21% in 30-39 mm, p=0.013) but less evident in >= 40 mm LNPCPs (24% vs 31%; p=0.151). In a post hoc analysis, the training effect was maintained in the study group, while in the control group the recurrence rate remained high.ConclusionA compact standardised EMR training for LNPCPs significantly reduced recurrences in community hospitals. This strongly argues for a national dedicated training programme for endoscopists performing EMR of >= 20 mm LNPCPs. Interestingly, in sensitivity analysis, this benefit was limited for LNPCPs >= 40 mm.Trial registration numberNTR7477. Show less
Background and AimMore insight into the incidence of and factors associated with progression following a first episode of acute pancreatitis (AP) would offer opportunities for improvements in... Show moreBackground and AimMore insight into the incidence of and factors associated with progression following a first episode of acute pancreatitis (AP) would offer opportunities for improvements in disease management and patient counseling.MethodsA long-term post hoc analysis of a prospective cohort of patients with AP (2008-2015) was performed. Primary endpoints were recurrent acute pancreatitis (RAP), chronic pancreatitis (CP), and pancreatic cancer. Cumulative incidence calculations and risk analyses were performed.ResultsOverall, 1184 patients with a median follow-up of 9 years (IQR: 7-11) were included. RAP and CP occurred in 301 patients (25%) and 72 patients (6%), with the highest incidences observed for alcoholic pancreatitis (40% and 22%). Pancreatic cancer was diagnosed in 14 patients (1%). Predictive factors for RAP were alcoholic and idiopathic pancreatitis (OR 2.70, 95% CI 1.51-4.82 and OR 2.06, 95% CI 1.40-3.02), and no pancreatic interventions (OR 1.82, 95% CI 1.10-3.01). Non-biliary etiology (alcohol: OR 5.24, 95% CI 1.94-14.16, idiopathic: OR 4.57, 95% CI 2.05-10.16, and other: OR 2.97, 95% CI 1.11-7.94), RAP (OR 4.93, 95% CI 2.84-8.58), prior pancreatic interventions (OR 3.10, 95% CI 1.20-8.02), smoking (OR 2.33, 95% CI 1.14-4.78), and male sex (OR 2.06, 95% CI 1.05-4.05) were independently associated with CP.ConclusionDisease progression was observed in a quarter of pancreatitis patients. We identified several risk factors that may be helpful to devise personalized strategies with the intention to reduce the impact of disease progression in patients with AP. Show less
BackgroundCholecystectomy in patients with idiopathic acute pancreatitis (IAP) is controversial. A randomized trial found cholecystectomy to reduce the recurrence rate of IAP but did not include... Show moreBackgroundCholecystectomy in patients with idiopathic acute pancreatitis (IAP) is controversial. A randomized trial found cholecystectomy to reduce the recurrence rate of IAP but did not include preoperative endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS). As EUS is effective in detecting gallstone disease, cholecystectomy may be indicated only in patients with gallstone disease. This study aimed to determine the diagnostic value of EUS in patients with IAP, and the rate of recurrent pancreatitis in patients in whom EUS could not determine the aetiology (EUS-negative IAP).MethodsThis prospective multicentre cohort study included patients with a first episode of IAP who underwent outpatient EUS. The primary outcome was detection of aetiology by EUS. Secondary outcomes included adverse events after EUS, recurrence of pancreatitis, and quality of life during 1-year follow-up.ResultsAfter screening 957 consecutive patients with acute pancreatitis from 24 centres, 105 patients with IAP were included and underwent EUS. In 34 patients (32 per cent), EUS detected an aetiology: (micro)lithiasis and biliary sludge (23.8 per cent), chronic pancreatitis (6.7 per cent), and neoplasms (2.9 per cent); 2 of the latter patients underwent pancreatoduodenectomy. During 1-year follow-up, the pancreatitis recurrence rate was 17 per cent (12 of 71) among patients with EUS-negative IAP versus 6 per cent (2 of 34) among those with positive EUS. Recurrent pancreatitis was associated with poorer quality of life.ConclusionEUS detected an aetiology in a one-third of patients with a first episode of IAP, requiring mostly cholecystectomy or pancreatoduodenectomy. The role of cholecystectomy in patients with EUS-negative IAP remains uncertain and warrants further study. Show less
Background Active surveillance is being investigated as an alternative to standard surgery after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy for oesophageal cancer. It is unknown whether dysphagia persists or... Show moreBackground Active surveillance is being investigated as an alternative to standard surgery after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy for oesophageal cancer. It is unknown whether dysphagia persists or develops when the oesophagus is preserved after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy. The aim of this study was to assess the prevalence and severity of dysphagia during active surveillance in patients with an ongoing response. Methods Patients who underwent active surveillance were identified from the Surgery As Needed for Oesophageal cancer ('SANO') trial. Patients without evidence of residual oesophageal cancer until at least 6 months after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy were included. Study endpoints were assessed at time points that patients were cancer-free and remained cancer-free for the next 4 months. Dysphagia scores were evaluated at 6, 9, 12, and 16 months after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy. Scores were based on the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer oesophago-gastric quality-of-life questionnaire 25 (EORTC QLQ-OG25) (range 0-100; no to severe dysphagia). The rate of patients with a (non-)traversable stenosis was determined based on all available endoscopy reports. Results In total, 131 patients were included, of whom 93 (71.0 per cent) had adenocarcinoma, 93 (71.0 per cent) had a cT3-4a tumour, and 33 (25.2 per cent) had a tumour circumference of greater than 75 per cent at endoscopy; 60.8 to 71.0 per cent of patients completed questionnaires per time point after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy. At all time points after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy, median dysphagia scores were 0 (interquartile range 0-0). Two patients (1.5 per cent) underwent an intervention for a stenosis: one underwent successful endoscopic dilatation; and the other patient required temporary tube feeding. Notably, these patients did not participate in questionnaires. Conclusion Dysphagia and clinically relevant stenosis are uncommon during active surveillance.Dysphagia appears uncommon in patients with a clinically complete response until 16 months after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy according to the ChemoRadiotherapy for Oesophageal cancer followed by Surgery Study ('CROSS') regimen. In patients who might choose between standard surgery and active surveillance, the occurrence of persisting dysphagia during active surveillance is not an issue that needs to be taken into account. Show less
Objective: Routine urgent endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) with endoscopic biliary sphincterotomy (ES) does not improve outcome in patients with predicted severe acute biliary... Show moreObjective: Routine urgent endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) with endoscopic biliary sphincterotomy (ES) does not improve outcome in patients with predicted severe acute biliary pancreatitis. Improved patient selection for ERCP by means of endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) for stone/sludge detection may challenge these findings. Design: A multicentre, prospective cohort study included patients with predicted severe acute biliary pancreatitis without cholangitis. Patients underwent urgent EUS, followed by ERCP with ES in case of common bile duct stones/sludge, within 24 hours after hospital presentation and within 72 hours after symptom onset. The primary endpoint was a composite of major complications or mortality within 6 months after inclusion. The historical control group was the conservative treatment arm (n=113) of the randomised APEC trial (Acute biliary Pancreatitis: urgent ERCP with sphincterotomy versus conservative treatment, patient inclusion 2013-2017) applying the same study design. Results: Overall, 83 patients underwent urgent EUS at a median of 21 hours (IQR 17-23) after hospital presentation and at a median of 29 hours (IQR 23-41) after start of symptoms. Gallstones/sludge in the bile ducts were detected by EUS in 48/83 patients (58%), all of whom underwent immediate ERCP with ES. The primary endpoint occurred in 34/83 patients (41%) in the urgent EUS-guided ERCP group. This was not different from the 44% rate (50/113 patients) in the historical conservative treatment group (risk ratio (RR) 0.93, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.29; p=0.65). Sensitivity analysis to correct for baseline differences using a logistic regression model also showed no significant beneficial effect of the intervention on the primary outcome (adjusted OR 1.03, 95% CI 0.56 to 1.90, p=0.92). Conclusion: In patients with predicted severe acute biliary pancreatitis without cholangitis, urgent EUS-guided ERCP with ES did not reduce the composite endpoint of major complications or mortality, as compared with conservative treatment in a historical control group. Show less
Zwager, L.W.; Moons, L.M.G.; Sarasqueta, A.F.; Lacle, M.M.; Albers, S.C.; Hompes, R.; ... ; Dutch eFTR Working Group 2022
Background: T1 colorectal cancer (CRC) without histological high-risk factors for lymph node metastasis (LNM) can potentially be cured by endoscopic resection, which is associated with... Show moreBackground: T1 colorectal cancer (CRC) without histological high-risk factors for lymph node metastasis (LNM) can potentially be cured by endoscopic resection, which is associated with significantly lower morbidity, mortality and costs compared to radical surgery. An important prerequisite for endoscopic resection as definite treatment is the histological confirmation of tumour-free resection margins. Incomplete resection with involved (R1) or indeterminate (Rx) margins is considered a strong risk factor for residual disease and local recurrence. Therefore, international guidelines recommend additional surgery in case of R1/Rx resection, even in absence of high-risk factors for LNM. Endoscopic full-thickness resection (eFTR) is a relatively new technique that allows transmural resection of colorectal lesions. Local scar excision after prior R1/Rx resection of low-risk T1 CRC could offer an attractive minimal invasive strategy to achieve confirmation about radicality of the previous resection or a second attempt for radical resection of residual luminal cancer. However, oncologic safety has not been established and long-term data are lacking. Besides, surveillance varies widely and requires standardization. Methods/design: In this nationwide, multicenter, prospective cohort study we aim to assess feasibility and oncological safety of completion eFTR following incomplete resection of low-risk T1 CRC. The primary endpoint is to assess the 2 and 5 year luminal local tumor recurrence rate. Secondary study endpoints are to assess feasibility, percentage of curative eFTR-resections, presence of scar tissue and/or complete scar excision at histopathology, safety of eFTR compared to surgery, 2 and 5 year nodal and/or distant tumor recurrence rate and 5-year disease-specific and overall-survival rate. Discussion: Since the implementation of CRC screening programs, the diagnostic rate of T1 CRC is steadily increasing. A significant proportion is not recognized as cancer before endoscopic resection and is therefore resected through conventional techniques primarily reserved for benign polyps. As such, precise histological assessment is often hampered due to cauterization and fragmentation and frequently leads to treatment dilemmas. This first prospective trial will potentially demonstrate the effectiveness and oncological safety of completion eFTR for patients who have undergone a previous incomplete T1 CRC resection. Hereby, substantial surgical overtreatment may be avoided, leading to treatment optimization and organ preservation. Show less
BackgroundT1 colorectal cancer (CRC) without histological high-risk factors for lymph node metastasis (LNM) can potentially be cured by endoscopic resection, which is associated with significantly... Show moreBackgroundT1 colorectal cancer (CRC) without histological high-risk factors for lymph node metastasis (LNM) can potentially be cured by endoscopic resection, which is associated with significantly lower morbidity, mortality and costs compared to radical surgery. An important prerequisite for endoscopic resection as definite treatment is the histological confirmation of tumour-free resection margins. Incomplete resection with involved (R1) or indeterminate (Rx) margins is considered a strong risk factor for residual disease and local recurrence. Therefore, international guidelines recommend additional surgery in case of R1/Rx resection, even in absence of high-risk factors for LNM. Endoscopic full-thickness resection (eFTR) is a relatively new technique that allows transmural resection of colorectal lesions. Local scar excision after prior R1/Rx resection of low-risk T1 CRC could offer an attractive minimal invasive strategy to achieve confirmation about radicality of the previous resection or a second attempt for radical resection of residual luminal cancer. However, oncologic safety has not been established and long-term data are lacking. Besides, surveillance varies widely and requires standardization.Methods/designIn this nationwide, multicenter, prospective cohort study we aim to assess feasibility and oncological safety of completion eFTR following incomplete resection of low-risk T1 CRC. The primary endpoint is to assess the 2 and 5 year luminal local tumor recurrence rate. Secondary study endpoints are to assess feasibility, percentage of curative eFTR-resections, presence of scar tissue and/or complete scar excision at histopathology, safety of eFTR compared to surgery, 2 and 5 year nodal and/or distant tumor recurrence rate and 5-year disease-specific and overall-survival rate.DiscussionSince the implementation of CRC screening programs, the diagnostic rate of T1 CRC is steadily increasing. A significant proportion is not recognized as cancer before endoscopic resection and is therefore resected through conventional techniques primarily reserved for benign polyps. As such, precise histological assessment is often hampered due to cauterization and fragmentation and frequently leads to treatment dilemmas. This first prospective trial will potentially demonstrate the effectiveness and oncological safety of completion eFTR for patients who have undergone a previous incomplete T1 CRC resection. Hereby, substantial surgical overtreatment may be avoided, leading to treatment optimization and organ preservation. Show less
Objective: Lumen-apposing metal stents (LAMS) are believed to clinically improve endoscopic transluminal drainage of infected necrosis when compared with double-pigtail plastic stents. However,... Show moreObjective: Lumen-apposing metal stents (LAMS) are believed to clinically improve endoscopic transluminal drainage of infected necrosis when compared with double-pigtail plastic stents. However, comparative data from prospective studies are very limited. Design: Patients with infected necrotising pancreatitis, who underwent an endoscopic step-up approach with LAMS within a multicentre prospective cohort study were compared with the data of 51 patients in the randomised TENSION trial who had been assigned to the endoscopic step-up approach with double-pigtail plastic stents. The clinical study protocol was otherwise identical for both groups. Primary end point was the need for endoscopic transluminal necrosectomy. Secondary end points included mortality, major complications, hospital stay and healthcare costs. Results: A total of 53 patients were treated with LAMS in 16 hospitals during 27 months. The need for endoscopic transluminal necrosectomy was 64% (n=34) and was not different from the previous trial using plastic stents (53%, n=27)), also after correction for baseline characteristics (OR 1.21 (95% CI 0.45 to 3.23)). Secondary end points did not differ between groups either, which also included bleeding requiring intervention-5 patients (9%) after LAMS placement vs 11 patients (22%) after placement of plastic stents (relative risk 0.44; 95% CI 0.16 to 1.17). Total healthcare costs were also comparable (mean difference -euro6348, bias-corrected and accelerated 95% CI -euro26 386 to euro10 121). Conclusion: Our comparison of two patient groups from two multicentre prospective studies with a similar design suggests that LAMS do not reduce the need for endoscopic transluminal necrosectomy when compared with double-pigtail plastic stents in patients with infected necrotising pancreatitis. Also, the rate of bleeding complications was comparable. Show less
Objective: The aim of this study was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of a modified CAL-WR. Summary Background Data: The use of segmental colectomy in patients with endoscopically unresectable... Show moreObjective: The aim of this study was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of a modified CAL-WR. Summary Background Data: The use of segmental colectomy in patients with endoscopically unresectable colonic lesions results in significant morbidity and mortality. CAL-WR is an alternative procedure that may reduce morbidity. Methods: This prospective multicenter study was performed in 13 Dutch hospitals between January 2017 and December 2019. Inclusion criteria were (1) colonic lesions inaccessible using current endoscopic resection techniques (judged by an expert panel), (2) non-lifting residual/recurrent adenomatous tissue after previous polypectomy or (3) an undetermined resection margin after endoscopic removal of a low-risk pathological T1 (pT1) colon carcinoma. Thirty-day morbidity, technical success rate and radicality were evaluated. Results: Of the 118 patients included (56% male, mean age 66 years, standard deviation +/- 8 years), 66 (56%) had complex lesions unsuitable for endoscopic removal, 34 (29%) had non-lifting residual/recurrent adenoma after previous polypectomy and 18 (15%) had uncertain resection margins after polypectomy of a pT1 colon carcinoma. CAL-WR was technically successful in 93% and R-0 resection was achieved in 91% of patients. Minor complications (Clavien-Dindo i-ii) were noted in 7 patients (6%) and an additional oncologic segmental resection was performed in 12 cases (11%). Residual tissue at the scar was observed in 5% of patients during endoscopic follow-up. Conclusions: CAL-WR is an effective, organ-preserving approach that results in minor complications and circumvents the need for major surgery. CAL-WR, therefore, deserves consideration when endoscopic excision of circumscribed lesions is impossible or incomplete. Show less
BackgroundEndoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) for large colorectal polyps is in most cases the preferred treatment to prevent progression to colorectal carcinoma. The most common complication after... Show moreBackgroundEndoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) for large colorectal polyps is in most cases the preferred treatment to prevent progression to colorectal carcinoma. The most common complication after EMR is delayed bleeding, occurring in 7% overall and in approximately 10% of polyps >= 2cm in the proximal colon. Previous research has suggested that prophylactic clipping of the mucosal defect after EMR may reduce the incidence of delayed bleeding in polyps with a high bleeding risk.MethodsThe CLIPPER trial is a multicenter, parallel-group, single blinded, randomized controlled superiority study. A total of 356 patients undergoing EMR for large (>= 2cm) non-pedunculated polyps in the proximal colon will be included and randomized to the clip group or the control group. Prophylactic clipping will be performed in the intervention group to close the resection defect after the EMR with a distance of <1cm between the clips. Primary outcome is delayed bleeding within 30days after EMR. Secondary outcomes are recurrent or residual polyps and clip artifacts during surveillance colonoscopy after 6months, as well as cost-effectiveness of prophylactic clipping and severity of delayed bleeding.DiscussionThe CLIPPER trial is a pragmatic study performed in the Netherlands and is powered to determine the real-time efficacy and cost-effectiveness of prophylactic clipping after EMR of proximal colon polyps 2cm in the Netherlands. This study will also generate new data on the achievability of complete closure and the effects of clip placement on scar surveillance after EMR, in order to further promote the debate on the role of prophylactic clipping in everyday clinical practice.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT03309683. Registered on 13 October 2017. Start recruitment: 05 March 2018. Planned completion of recruitment: 31 August 2021. Show less
Introduction Idiopathic acute pancreatitis (IAP) remains a dilemma for physicians as it is uncertain whether patients with IAP may actually have an occult aetiology. It is unclear to what extent... Show moreIntroduction Idiopathic acute pancreatitis (IAP) remains a dilemma for physicians as it is uncertain whether patients with IAP may actually have an occult aetiology. It is unclear to what extent additional diagnostic modalities such as endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) are warranted after a first episode of IAP in order to uncover this aetiology. Failure to timely determine treatable aetiologies delays appropriate treatment and might subsequently cause recurrence of acute pancreatitis. Therefore, the aim of the Pancreatitis of Idiopathic origin: Clinical added value of endoscopic UltraSonography (PICUS) Study is to determine the value of routine EUS in determining the aetiology of pancreatitis in patients with a first episode of IAP. Methods and analysis PICUS is designed as a multicentre prospective cohort study of 106 patients with a first episode of IAP after complete standard diagnostic work-up, in whom a diagnostic EUS will be performed. Standard diagnostic work-up will include a complete personal and family history, laboratory tests including serum alanine aminotransferase, calcium and triglyceride levels and imaging by transabdominal ultrasound, magnetic resonance imaging or magnetic resonance cholangiopancreaticography after clinical recovery from the acute pancreatitis episode. The primary outcome measure is detection of aetiology by EUS. Secondary outcome measures include pancreatitis recurrence rate, severity of recurrent pancreatitis, readmission, additional interventions, complications, length of hospital stay, quality of life, mortality and costs, during a follow-up period of 12 months. Ethics and dissemination PICUS is conducted according to the Declaration of Helsinki and Guideline for Good Clinical Practice. Five medical ethics review committees assessed PICUS (Medical Ethics Review Committee of Academic Medical Center, University Medical Center Utrecht, Radboud University Medical Center, Erasmus Medical Center and Maastricht University Medical Center). The results will be submitted for publication in an international peer-reviewed journal. Show less
Kessels, K.; Backes, Y.; Elias, S.G.; Blink, A. van den; Offerhaus, G.J.A.; Bergeijk, J.D. van; ... ; Dutch T1 Colorectal Canc Working 2019
