Daan Michiel Voeten

Adrenal incidentalomas are regularly encountered during imaging for esophageal cancer patients, but their oncological significance remains unknown. This study aimed to describe the incidence and etiology of adrenal incidentalomas observed throughout the diagnostic workup. This retrospective cohort study included all esophageal cancer patients referred to or diagnosed in the Amsterdam UMC between January 2012 and December 2016. Radiology and multidisciplinary team meeting reports were reviewed for adrenal incidentalomas. In case of adrenal incidentaloma, the ¹⁸FDG-PET/CT was reassessed by a radiologist blinded for the original report. In case of a metachronous incidentaloma during follow-up, visibility on previous imaging was reassessed. Primary outcome was the incidence, etiology and oncological consequence of synchronous adrenal incidentalomas. This study included 1,164 esophageal cancer patients, with a median age of 66 years. Patients were predominantly male (76.1%) and the majority had an adenocarcinoma (69.0%). Adrenal incidentalomas were documented in 138 patients (11.9%) during the diagnostic workup. At primary esophageal cancer workup, 22 incidentalomas proved malignant. However, follow-up showed that four incidentalomas were inaccurately diagnosed as benign and three malignant incidentalomas were visible on staging imaging but initially missed. Stage migration occurred in 15 of 22 (68.2%), but this would have been higher if none were missed or inaccurately diagnosed. The oncological impact of adrenal incidentalomas in patients with esophageal cancer is significant as a considerable part of incidentalomas changed treatment intent from curative to palliative. As stage migration is likely, pathological examination of a synchronous adrenal incidentaloma should be weighted in mind.

The purpose of this study was to investigate hospital variation in the placement, surgical techniques, and safety of feeding jejunostomies (FJ) during minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) in the Netherlands. This nationwide cohort study analyzed patients registered in the Dutch Upper Gastrointestinal Cancer Audit (DUCA) that underwent MIE for cancer. Hospital variation in FJ placement rates were investigated using case-mix corrected funnel plots. Short-term outcomes were compared between patients with and without FJ using multilevel multivariable logistic regression analysis. The incidence of FJ-related complications was described and compared between hospitals performing routine and non-routine placement (≥90%–p < 0.001). Significant hospital variation in the use of FJs after MIE exists in the Netherlands. No effect of FJs on complications was observed. FJs can be placed safely, with lower FJ-related complication rates, in centers performing routine placement.

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic caused disruption of regular healthcare leading to reduced hospital attendances, repurposing of surgical facilities, and cancellation of cancer screening programmes. This study aimed to determine the impact of COVID-19 on surgical care in the Netherlands. Methods: A nationwide study was conducted in collaboration with the Dutch Institute for Clinical Auditing. Eight surgical audits were expanded with items regarding alterations in scheduling and treatment plans. Data on procedures performed in 2020 were compared with those from a historical cohort (2018–2019). Endpoints included total numbers of procedures performed and altered treatment plans. Secondary endpoints included complication, readmission, and mortality rates. Results: Some 12 154 procedures were performed in participating hospitals in 2020, representing a decrease of 13.6 per cent compared with 2018–2019. The largest reduction (29.2 per cent) was for non-cancer procedures during the first COVID-19 wave. Surgical treatment was postponed for 9.6 per cent of patients. Alterations in surgical treatment plans were observed in 1.7 per cent. Time from diagnosis to surgery decreased (to 28 days in 2020, from 34 days in 2019 and 36 days in 2018; P < 0.001). For cancer-related procedures, duration of hospital stay decreased (5 versus 6 days; P < 0.001). Audit-specific complications, readmission, and mortality rates were unchanged, but ICU admissions decreased (16.5 versus 16.8 per cent; P < 0.001). Conclusion: The reduction in the number of surgical operations was greatest for those without cancer. Where surgery was undertaken, it appeared to be delivered safely, with similar complication and mortality rates, fewer admissions to ICU, and a shorter hospital stay.

Transthoracic esophagectomy is currently the predominant curative treatment option for resectable esophageal adenocarcinoma. The majority of carcinomas present as locally advanced tumors requiring multimodal strategies with either neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy or perioperative chemotherapy alone. Minimally invasive, including robotic, techniques are increasingly applied with a broad spectrum of technical variations existing for the oncological resection as well as gastric reconstruction. At the present, intrathoracic esophagogastrostomy is the preferred technique of reconstruction (Ivor Lewis esophagectomy). With standardized surgical procedures, a complete resection of the primary tumor can be achieved in almost 95% of patients. Even in expert centers, postoperative morbidity remains high, with an overall complication rate of 50–60%, whereas 30- and 90-day mortality are reported to be <2% and <6%, respectively. Due to the complexity of transthoracic esophagetomy and its associated morbidity, esophageal surgery is recommended to be performed in specialized centers with an appropriate caseload yet to be defined. In order to reduce postoperative morbidity, the selection of patients, preoperative rehabilitation and postoperative fast-track concepts are feasible strategies of perioperative management. Future directives aim to further centralize esophageal services, to individualize surgical treatment for high-risk patients and to implement intraoperative imaging modalities modifying the oncological extent of resection and facilitating surgical reconstruction.

Objective: To evaluate changes in treatment and outcomes of esophagogastric cancer surgery after introduction of the DUCA. In addition, the presence of risk-averse behavior was assessed. Summary of Background Data: Clinical auditing is seen as an important quality improvement tool; however, its long-term efficacy remains largely unknown. In addition, critics claim that enhancements result from risk-averse behavior rather than positive effects of auditing. Methods: DUCA data were used from registration start (1-1-2011) until 31-12-2018. Trends in patient, tumor, hospital and treatment characteristics were univariably assessed. Trends in short-term outcomes were investigated using multilevel multivariable logistic regression. Presence of risk aversion was described by the corrected proportion of patients undergoing surgery, using data from the Netherlands Cancer Registry. To evaluate the impact of centralization on time trends identified, the association between hospital volume and outcomes was investigated. Results: This study included 6172 patients with esophageal and 3,690 with gastric cancer who underwent surgery. Pathological outcomes (lymph node yield, radicality) improved and futile surgery decreased over the years. In-hospital/30-day mortality decreased for esophagectomy (4.2% to 2.5%) and for gastrectomy (7.1% to 4.3%). Reinterventions, (minor) complications and readmissions increased. Risk aversion appeared absent. Between 2011-2018, annual median hospital volumes increased from 38 to 53 for esophagectomy and from 14 to 29 for gastrectomy. Higher hospital volumes were associated with several improved outcomes measures. Conclusions: During 8 years of auditing, outcomes improved, with no signs of risk-averse behavior. These improvements occurred in parallel with centralization. Feedback on postoperative complications remains the focus of the DUCA.

Objective: In the pursuit of quality improvement, this study aimed to investigate volume-outcome trends in oncologic esophagectomy in the Netherlands. Summary of Background Data: Concentration of Dutch esophageal cancer care was dictated by introducing an institutional minimum of 20 resections/yr. Methods: This nationwide cohort study included all esophagectomy patients registered in the Dutch Upper Gastrointestinal Cancer Audit in 2016–2019 from hospitals currently still performing esophagectomies. Annual esophagectomy hospital volume was assigned to each patient and categorized into quartiles. Multivariable logistic regression investigated short-term surgical outcomes. Restricted cubic splines investigated if volume-outcome relationships eventually plateaued. Results: In 16 hospitals, 3135 esophagectomies were performed. First volume quartile hospitals performed 24–39 resections/yr; second, third, and fourth quartile hospitals performed 40–53, 54–69, and 70–101, respectively. Compared to quartile 1, in quartiles 2 to 4, overall/severe/technical complication, anastomotic leakage, and prolonged hospital/intensive care unit stay rates were significantly lower and textbook outcome and lymph node yield were higher. When raising the cut-off from the first to second quartile, higher-volume centers had less technical complications [Adjusted odds ratio (aOR): 0.82, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.70–0.96], less anastomotic leakage (aOR: 0.80, 95% CI: 0.66–0.97), more textbook outcome (aOR: 1.25, 95% CI: 1.07–1.46), shorter intensive care unit stay (aOR: 0.80, 95% CI: 0.69–0.93), and higher lymph node yield (aOR: 3.56, 95% CI: 2.68–4.77). For most outcomes the volume-outcome trend plateaued at 50–60 annual resections, but lymph node yield and anastomotic leakage continued to improve. Conclusion: Although this study does not reflect on individual hospital quality, there appears to be a volume trend towards better outcomes in high-volume centers. Projects have been initiated to improve national quality of care by reducing hospital variation (irrespective of volume) in outcomes in The Netherlands.

Background: Existing literature suggests deteriorating surgical outcome of esophagogastric surgery as the week progresses. However, these studies were conducted in the pre‐centralization and pre‐minimally invasive era. In addition, they failed to correct for fixed weekdays of esophagogastric cancer surgery among hospitals. This study aimed to describe the impact of weekday of minimally invasive upper gastrointestinal surgery on short‐term surgical outcomes.Methods: All patients registered in the Dutch Upper Gastrointestinal Cancer Audit who underwent curative minimally invasive esophageal or gastric carcinoma surgery in 2015–2019, were included in this nationwide cohort study. Using multilevel multivariable logistic regression, the impact of weekday of surgery on 14 short‐term surgical outcomes was investigated. To correct for interhospital variance in fixed weekday(s) of surgery multilevel analyses was used. Results were adjusted for patient, tumor, and treatment characteristics using multivariable logistic regression analyses.Results: This study included 4,102 patients undergoing minimally invasive upper gastrointestinal surgery (2,968 esophageal cancer and 1,134 gastric cancer patients). Weekday of surgery did not impact postoperative complications, severe postoperative complications, surgical/technical complications, medical complications, anastomotic leakage, complicated postoperative course, failure to rescue, surgical radicality, lymph node yield, 30‐day/in‐hospital mortality, reinterventions, length of ICU stay, 30‐day readmission, and textbook outcome after neither esophageal cancer nor gastric cancer surgery.Conclusions: Minimally invasive esophagogastric surgery can be performed safely on all weekdays with respect to short‐term surgical outcomes, which is important information for operation room scheduling.