IMPORTANCE Laparoscopic gastrectomy is rapidly being adopted worldwide as an alternative to open gastrectomy to treat gastric cancer. However, laparoscopic gastrectomy might be more expensive as a... Show moreIMPORTANCE Laparoscopic gastrectomy is rapidly being adopted worldwide as an alternative to open gastrectomy to treat gastric cancer. However, laparoscopic gastrectomy might be more expensive as a result of longer operating times and more expensive surgical materials. To date, the cost-effectiveness of both procedures has not been prospectively evaluated in a randomized clinical trial. OBJECTIVE To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of laparoscopic compared with open gastrectomy. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS In this multicenter randomized clinical trial of patients undergoing total or distal gastrectomy in 10 Dutch tertiary referral centers, cost-effectiveness data were collected alongside a multicenter randomized clinical trial on laparoscopic vs open gastrectomy for resectable gastric adenocarcinoma (cT1-4aN0-3bM0). A modified societal perspective and 1-year time horizon were used. Costs were calculated on the individual patient level by using hospital registry data and medical consumption and productivity loss questionnaires. The unit costs of laparoscopic and open gastrectomy were calculated bottom-up. Quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were calculated with the EuroQol 5-dimension questionnaire, in which a value of 0 indicates death and 1 indicates perfect health. Missing questionnaire data were imputed with multiple imputation. Bootstrapping was performed to estimate the uncertainty surrounding the cost-effectiveness. The study was conducted from March 17, 2015, to August 20, 2018. Data analyses were performed between September 1, 2020, and November 17, 2021. INTERVENTIONS Laparoscopic vs open gastrectomy. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES Evaluations in this cost-effectiveness analysis included total costs and QALYs. RESULTS Between 2015 and 2018, 227 patients were included. Mean (SD) age was 67.5 (11.7) years, and 140 were male (61.7%). Unit costs for initial surgery were calculated to be euro8124 (US $8087) for laparoscopic total gastrectomy, euro7353 (US $7320) for laparoscopic distal gastrectomy, euro6584 (US $6554) for open total gastrectomy, and euro5893 (US $5866) for open distal gastrectomy. Mean total costs after 1-year follow-up were euro26 084 (US $25 965) in the laparoscopic group and euro25 332 (US $25 216) in the open group (difference, euro752 [US $749; 3.0%]). Mean (SD) QALY contributions during 1 year were 0.665 (0.298) in the laparoscopic group and 0.686 (0.288) in the open group (difference, -0.021). Bootstrapping showed that these differences between treatment groups were relatively small compared with the uncertainty of the analysis. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE Although the laparoscopic gastrectomy itself was more expensive, after 1-year follow-up, results suggest that differences in both total costs and effectiveness were limited between laparoscopic and open gastrectomy. These results support centers' choosing, based on their own preference, whether to (de)implement laparoscopic gastrectomy as an alternative to open gastrectomy. Show less
IMPORTANCE: Glucose control in patients after total pancreatectomy is problematic because of the complete absence of alpha- and beta-cells, leading to impaired quality of life. A novel, bihormonal... Show moreIMPORTANCE: Glucose control in patients after total pancreatectomy is problematic because of the complete absence of alpha- and beta-cells, leading to impaired quality of life. A novel, bihormonal artificial pancreas (BIHAP), using both insulin and glucagon, may improve glucose control, but studies in this setting are lacking.OBJECTIVE: To assess the efficacy and safety of the BIHAP in patients after total pancreatectomy.DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This randomized crossover clinical trial compared the fully closed-loop BIHAP with current diabetes care (ie, insulin pump or pen therapy) in 12 adult outpatients after total pancreatectomy. Patients were recruited between August 21 and November 16, 2020. This first-in-patient study began with a feasibility phase in 2 patients. Subsequently, 12 patients were randomly assigned to 7-day treatment with the BIHAP (preceded by a 5-day training period) followed by 7-day treatment with current diabetes care, or the same treatments in reverse order. Statistical analysis was by Wilcoxon signed rank and Mann-Whitney U tests, with significance set at a 2-sided P < .05.MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The primary outcomewas the percentage of time spent in euglycemia (70-180mg/dL [3.9-10 mmol/L]) as assessed by continuous glucose monitoring.RESULTS: In total, 12 patients (7 men and 3 women; median [IQR] age, 62.5 [43.1-74.0] years) were randomly assigned, of whom 3 did not complete the BIHAP phase and 1 was replaced. The time spent in euglycemia was significantly higher during treatment with the BIHAP (median, 78.30%; IQR, 71.05%-82.61%) than current diabetes care (median, 57.38%; IQR, 52.38%-81.35%; P = .03). In addition, the time spent in hypoglycemia (<70mg/dL [3.9 mmol/L]) was lower with the BIHAP (median, 0.00% [IQR, 0.00%-0.07%] vs 1.61% [IQR, 0.80%-3.81%]; P = .004). No serious adverse events occurred.CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Patients using the BIHAP after total pancreatectomy experienced an increased percentage of time in euglycemia and a reduced percentage of time in hypoglycemia compared with current diabetes care, without apparent safety risks. Larger randomized trials, including longer periods of treatment and an assessment of quality of life, should confirm these findings. Show less
Loggers, S.A.I.; Willems, H.C.; Balen, R. van; Gosens, T.; Polinder, S.; Ponsen, K.J.; ... ; FRAIL-HIP Study Grp 2022
IMPORTANCE Decision-making on management of proximal femoral fractures in frail patients with limited life expectancy is challenging, but surgical overtreatment needs to be prevented. Current... Show moreIMPORTANCE Decision-making on management of proximal femoral fractures in frail patients with limited life expectancy is challenging, but surgical overtreatment needs to be prevented. Current literature provides limited insight into the true outcomes of nonoperative management and operative management in this patient population. OBJECTIVE To investigate the outcomes of nonoperative management vs operative management of proximal femoral fractures in institutionalized frail older patients with limited life expectancy. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS This multicenter cohort studywas conducted between September 1, 2018, and April 25, 2020, with a 6-month follow-up period at 25 hospitals across the Netherlands. Eligible patientswere aged 70 years or older, frail, and institutionalized and sustained a femoral neck or pertrochanteric fracture. The term frail implied at least 1 of the following characteristicswas present: malnutrition (body mass index [calculated asweight in kilograms divided by height in meters squared] <18.5) or cachexia, severe comorbidities (American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status class of IV or V), or severe mobility issues (Functional Ambulation Category similar to 2). EXPOSURES Shared decision-making (SDM) followed by nonoperative or operative fracture management. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES The primary outcomewas the EuroQol 5 Dimension 5 Level (EQ-5D) utility score by proxies and caregivers. Secondary outcome measures were QUALIDEM (a dementia-specific quality-of-life instrument for persons with dementia in residential settings) scores, pain level (assessed by the Pain Assessment Checklist for Seniors With Limited Ability to Communicate), adverse events (Clavien-Dindo classification), mortality, treatment satisfaction (numeric rating scale), and quality of dying (Quality of Dying and Death Questionnaire). RESULTS Of the 172 enrolled patients with proximal femoral fractures (median [25th and 75th percentile] age, 88 [85-92] years; 135women [78%]), 88 opted for nonoperative management and 84 opted for operative management. The EQ-5D utility scores by proxies and caregivers in the nonoperative management group remained within the set 0.15 noninferiority limit of the operative management group (week 1: 0.17 [95% CI, 0.13-0.29] vs 0.26 [95% CI, 0.11-0.23]; week 2: 0.19 [95% CI, 0.10-0.27] vs 0.28 [95% CI, 0.22-0.35]; and week 4: 0.24 [95% CI, 0.15-0.33] vs 0.34 [95% CI, 0.28-0.41]). Adverse eventswere less frequent in the nonoperative management group vs the operative management group (67 vs 167). The 30-day mortality rate was 83%(n = 73) in the nonoperative management group and 25%(n = 21) in the operative management group, with 26 proxies and caregivers (51%) in the nonoperative management group rating the quality of dying as good-almost perfect. Treatment satisfaction was high in both groups, with a median numeric rating scale score of 8. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE Results of this study indicated that nonoperative management of proximal femoral fractures (selected through an SDM process) was a viable option for frail institutionalized patients with limited life expectancy, suggesting that surgery should not be a foregone conclusion for this patient population. Show less
IMPORTANCE Neoadjuvant checkpoint inhibition in patients with high-risk stage III melanoma shows high pathologic response rates associated with a durable relapse-free survival. Whether a... Show moreIMPORTANCE Neoadjuvant checkpoint inhibition in patients with high-risk stage III melanoma shows high pathologic response rates associated with a durable relapse-free survival. Whether a therapeutic lymph node dissection (TLND) can be safely omitted when a major pathologic response in the largest lymph node metastasis at baseline (index lymph node; ILN) is obtained is currently being investigated. A previous small pilot study (n = 12) showed that the response in the ILN may be representative of the pathologic response in the entire TLND specimen.OBJECTIVE To assess the concordance of response between the ILN and the total lymph node bed in a larger clinical trial population.DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS Retrospective pathologic response analysis of a multicenter clinical trial population of patients from the randomized Study to Identify the Optimal Adjuvant Combination Scheme of Ipilimumab and Nivolumab in Melanoma Patients (OpACIN) and Optimal Neo-Adjuvant Combination Scheme of Ipilimumab and Nivolumab (OpACIN-neo) trials. Included patients were treated with 6 weeks neoadjuvant ipilimumab plus nivolumab. Patient inclusion into the trials was conducted from August 12, 2015, to October 24, 2016 (OpACIN), and November 24, 2016, and June 28, 2018 (OpACIN-neo). Data were analyzed from April 1, 2020, to August 31, 2021.MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES Concordance of the pathologic response between the ILN and the TLND tumor bed. The pathologic response of the ILN was retrospectively assessed according to the International Neoadjuvant Melanoma Consortium criteria and compared with the pathologic response of the entire TLND specimen.RESULTS A total of 82 patients treated with neoadjuvant ipilimumab and nivolumab followed by TLND (48 [59%] were male; median age, 58.5 [range, 18-80] years) were included. The pathologic response in the ILN was concordant with the entire TLND specimen response in 81 of 82 patients (99%) and in 79 of 82 patients (96%) concordant when comparing the ILN response with the response in every individual lymph node. In the single patient with a discordant response, the ILN response (20% viable tumor, partial pathologic response) underestimated the entire TLND specimen response (5% viable, near-complete pathologic response). Two other patients each had 1 small nonindex node that contained 80% viable tumor (pathologic nonresponse) whereas all other lymph nodes (including the ILN) showed a partial pathologic response. In these 2 patients, the risk of regional relapse might potentially have been increased if TLND had been omitted.CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE The results of this study suggest that the pathologic response of the ILN may be considered a reliable indicator of the entire TLND specimen response and may support the ILN response-directed omission of TLND in a prospective trial. Show less
Steur, W.O. de; Hutteman, M.; Hartgrink, H.H. 2021
Question What are the outcomes of liver transplants with grafts donated after euthanasia? Findings In this cohort study of 47 liver transplants with grafts donated after euthanasia in the... Show moreQuestion What are the outcomes of liver transplants with grafts donated after euthanasia? Findings In this cohort study of 47 liver transplants with grafts donated after euthanasia in the Netherlands and Belgium, recipient and graft survival rates were comparable with the survival rates in a comparative cohort of 542 recipients of liver grafts from donors with a circulatory arrest after the withdrawal of life-supporting treatment. The use of liver grafts donated after euthanasia can expand the pool of grafts donated after circulatory death by approximately 7%. Meaning Findings from this study suggest that the use of liver grafts donated after euthanasia is justifiable and can expand the existing liver donor pool.This cohort study explores the concept, processes, implications, and outcomes of liver organ donation after a donor's death from euthanasia in the Netherlands and Belgium.Importance The option of donating organs after euthanasia is not well known. Assessment of the results of organ transplants with grafts donated after euthanasia is essential to justify the use of this type of organ donation. Objectives To assess the outcomes of liver transplants (LTs) with grafts donated after euthanasia (donation after circulatory death type V [DCD-V]), and to compare them with the results of the more commonly performed LTs with grafts from donors with a circulatory arrest after the withdrawal of life-supporting treatment (type III [DCD-III]). Design, Setting, and Participants This retrospective multicenter cohort study analyzed medical records and LT data for most transplant centers in the Netherlands and Belgium. All LTs with DCD-V grafts performed from the start of the donation after euthanasia program (September 2012 for the Netherlands, and January 2005 for Belgium) through July 1, 2018, were included in the analysis. A comparative cohort of patients who received DCD-III grafts was also analyzed. All patients in both cohorts were followed up for at least 1 year. Data analysis was performed from September 2019 to December 2019. Exposures Liver transplant with either a DCD-V graft or DCD-III graft. Main Outcomes and Measures Primary outcomes were recipient and graft survival rates at years 1, 3, and 5 after the LT. Secondary outcomes included postoperative complications (early allograft dysfunction, hepatic artery thrombosis, and nonanastomotic biliary strictures) within the first year after the LT. Results Among the cohort of 47 LTs with DCD-V grafts, 25 organ donors (53%) were women and the median (interquartile range [IQR]) age was 51 (44-59) years. Among the cohort of 542 LTs with DCD-III grafts, 335 organ donors (62%) were men and the median (IQR) age was 49 (37-57) years. Median (IQR) follow-up was 3.8 (2.1-6.3) years. In the DCD-V cohort, 30 recipients (64%) were men, and the median (IQR) age was 56 (48-64) years. Recipient survival in the DCD-V cohort was 87% at 1 year, 73% at 3 years, and 66% at 5 years after LT. Graft survival among recipients was 74% at 1 year, 61% at 3 years, and 57% at 5 years after LT. These survival rates did not differ statistically significantly from those in the DCD-III cohort. Incidence of postoperative complications did not differ between the groups. For example, the occurrence of early allograft dysfunction after the LT was found to be 13 (31%) in the DCD-V cohort and 219 (45%) in the DCD-III cohort. The occurrence of nonanastomotic biliary strictures after the LT was found to be 7 (15%) in the DCD-V cohort and 83 (15%) in the DCD-III cohort. Conclusions and Relevance The findings of this cohort study suggest that LTs with DCD-V grafts yield similar outcomes as LTs with DCD-III grafts; therefore, grafts donated after euthanasia may be a justifiable option for increasing the organ donor pool. However, grafts from these donations should be considered high-risk grafts that require an optimal donor selection process and logistics. Show less
IMPORTANCE The association between quality of surgery and overall survival in patients affected by localized gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GIST) is not completely understood.OBJECTIVE To assess... Show moreIMPORTANCE The association between quality of surgery and overall survival in patients affected by localized gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GIST) is not completely understood.OBJECTIVE To assess the risk of death with and without imatinib according to microscopic margins status (R0/R1) using data from a randomized study on adjuvant imatinib.DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS This is a post hoc observational study on patients included in the randomized, open-label, phase III trial, performed between December 2004 and October 2008. Median follow-up was 9.1 years (IQR, 8-10 years). The study was performed at 112 hospitals in 12 countries. Inclusion criteria were diagnosis of primary GIST, with intermediate or high risk of relapse; no evidence of residual disease after surgery; older than 18 years; and no prior malignancies or concurrent severe/uncontrolled medical conditions. Data were analyzed between July17, 2017, and March 1, 2020.INTERVENTIONS Patients were randomized after surgery to either receive imatinib (400 mg/d) for 2 years or no adjuvant treatment. Randomization was stratified by center, risk category (high vs intermediate), tumor site (gastric vs other), and quality of surgery (R0 vs R1). Tumor rupture was included in the R1 category but also analyzed separately.MAN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES Primary end point of this substudy was overall survival (OS), estimated using Kaplan-Meier method and compared between R0/R1 using Cox models adjusted for treatment and stratification factors.RESULTS A total of 908 patients were included; 51.4% were men (465) and 48.6% were women (440), and the median age was 59 years (range, 18-89 years). One hundred sixty-two (17.8%) had an R1 resection, and 97 of 162 (59.9%) had tumor rupture. There was a significant difference in OS for patients undergoing an R1 vs R0 resection, overall (hazard ratio [HR], 2.05; 95% CI, 1.45-2.89) and by treatment arm (HR, 2.65; 95% CI, 1.37-3.75 with adjuvant imatinib and HR. 1.86; 95% CI, 1.16-2.99 without adjuvant imatinib). When tumor rupture was excluded, this difference in OS between R1 and R0 resections disappeared (HR, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.54-2.01).CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE The difference in OS by quality of surgery with or without imatinib was associated with the presence of tumor rupture. When the latter was excluded, the presence of R1 margins was not associated with worse OS. Show less
