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.

Quality indicators are used to measure quality of care and enable benchmarking. An overview of all existing hip fracture quality indicators is lacking. The primary aim was to identify quality indicators for hip fracture care reported in literature, hip fracture audits, and guidelines. The secondary aim was to compose a set of methodologically sound quality indicators for the evaluation of hip fracture care in clinical practice. A literature search according to the PRISMA guidelines and an internet search were performed to identify hip fracture quality indicators. The indicators were subdivided into process, structure, and outcome indicators. The methodological quality of the indicators was judged using the Appraisal of Indicators through Research and Evaluation (AIRE) instrument. For structure and process indicators, the construct validity was assessed. Sixteen publications, nine audits and five guidelines were included. In total, 97 unique quality indicators were found: 9 structure, 63 process, and 25 outcome indicators. Since detailed methodological information about the indicators was lacking, the AIRE instrument could not be applied. Seven indicators correlated with an outcome measure. A set of nine quality indicators was extracted from the literature, audits, and guidelines. Many quality indicators are described and used. Not all of them correlate with outcomes of care and have been assessed methodologically. As methodological evidence is lacking, we recommend the extracted set of nine indicators to be used as the starting point for further clinical research. Future research should focus on assessing the clinimetric properties of the existing quality indicators.

Objective The aim of this study is to identify preoperative patient-related prognostic factors for anastomotic leakage, mortality, and major complications in patients undergoing oncological esophagectomy. Background Esophagectomy is a high-risk procedure with an incidence of major complications around 25% and short-term mortality around 4%. Methods We systematically searched the Medline and Embase databases for studies investigating the associations between patient-related prognostic factors and anastomotic leakage, major postoperative complications (Clavien–Dindo ≥ IIIa), and/or 30-day/in-hospital mortality after esophagectomy for cancer. Results Thirty-nine eligible studies identifying 37 prognostic factors were included. Cardiac comorbidity was associated with anastomotic leakage, major complications, and mortality. Male sex and diabetes were prognostic factors for anastomotic leakage and major complications. Additionally, American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) score > III and renal disease were associated with anastomotic leakage and mortality. Pulmonary comorbidity, vascular comorbidity, hypertension, and adenocarcinoma tumor histology were identified as prognostic factors for anastomotic leakage. Age > 70 years, habitual alcohol usage, and body mass index (BMI) 18.5–25 kg/m2 were associated with increased risk for mortality. Conclusions Various patient-related prognostic factors are associated with anastomotic leakage, major postoperative complications, and postoperative mortality following oncological esophagectomy. This knowledge may define case-mix adjustment models used in benchmarking or auditing and may assist in selection of patients eligible for surgery or tailored perioperative care.

Supplemental Digital Content is available in the text

Background Standard therapy for loco-regionally advanced, resectable oesophageal carcinoma is trimodality therapy (TMT) consisting of neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy and oesophagectomy. Evidence of survival advantage of TMT over organ-preserving definitive chemoradiotherapy (dCRT) is inconclusive. The aim of this study is to compare survival between TMT and dCRT. Methods A systematic review and meta-analyses were conducted. Randomised controlled trials and observational studies on resectable, curatively treated, oesophageal carcinoma patients above 18 years were included. Three online databases were searched for studies comparing TMT with dCRT. Primary outcomes were 1-, 2-, 3-and 5-year overall survival rates. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tools for RCTs and cohort studies. Quality of evidence was evaluated according to Grading of Recommendation Assessment, Development and Evaluation. Results Thirty-two studies described in 35 articles were included in this systematic review, and 33 were included in the meta-analyses. Two-, three-and five-year overall survival was significantly lower in dCRT compared to TMT, with relative risks (RRs) of 0.69 (95% CI 0.57-0.83), 0.76 (95% CI 0.63-0.92) and 0.57 (95% CI 0.47-0.71), respectively. When only analysing studies with equal patient groups at baseline, no significant differences for 2-, 3and 5-year overall survival were found with RRs of 0.83 (95% CI 0.62-1.10), 0.81 (95% CI 0.57-1.14) and 0.63 (95% CI 0.36-1.12). Conclusion These meta-analyses do not show clear survival advantage for TMT over dCRT. Only a non-significant trend towards better survival was seen, assuming comparable patient groups at baseline. Non-operative management of oesophageal carcinoma patients might be part of a personalised and tailored treatment approach in future. However, to date hard evidence proving its non-inferiority compared to operative management is lacking.

Background Ileus is common after elective colorectal surgery, and is associated with increased adverse events and prolonged hospital stay. The aim was to assess the role of non‐steroidal anti‐inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) for reducing ileus after surgery. Methods A prospective multicentre cohort study was delivered by an international, student‐ and trainee‐led collaborative group. Adult patients undergoing elective colorectal resection between January and April 2018 were included. The primary outcome was time to gastrointestinal recovery, measured using a composite measure of bowel function and tolerance to oral intake. The impact of NSAIDs was explored using Cox regression analyses, including the results of a centre‐specific survey of compliance to enhanced recovery principles. Secondary safety outcomes included anastomotic leak rate and acute kidney injury. Results A total of 4164 patients were included, with a median age of 68 (i.q.r. 57–75) years (54·9 per cent men). Some 1153 (27·7 per cent) received NSAIDs on postoperative days 1–3, of whom 1061 (92·0 per cent) received non‐selective cyclo‐oxygenase inhibitors. After adjustment for baseline differences, the mean time to gastrointestinal recovery did not differ significantly between patients who received NSAIDs and those who did not (4·6 versus 4·8 days; hazard ratio 1·04, 95 per cent c.i. 0·96 to 1·12; P = 0·360). There were no significant differences in anastomotic leak rate (5·4 versus 4·6 per cent; P = 0·349) or acute kidney injury (14·3 versus 13·8 per cent; P = 0·666) between the groups. Significantly fewer patients receiving NSAIDs required strong opioid analgesia (35·3 versus 56·7 per cent; P < 0·001). Conclusion NSAIDs did not reduce the time for gastrointestinal recovery after colorectal surgery, but they were safe and associated with reduced postoperative opioid requirement.

Objective: This study aimed to describe failure to cure in terms of incidence, hospital variation, and as an outcome parameter for salvage esophagectomy. Summary Background Data: Failure to cure is a composite outcome measure that could be used for hospital comparison in esophageal carcinoma care. Methods: All patients registered in the Dutch Upper GI Cancer Audit who underwent potentially curative esophageal carcinoma surgery in 2011 to 2018, were included in this nationwide cohort study. Failure to cure was defined as: 1) no surgical resection due to intraoperative metastasis or locally irresectable tumor, 2) macroscopically or microscopically incomplete resection, or 3) 30-day/in-hospital mortality. Association of baseline characteristics with failure to cure was analyzed using multivariable logistic regression in the total population and in salvage patients. Results: Some 5894 patients from 22 hospitals were included, of whom 630 (10.7%) had failure to cure (hospital variation [5.5%–19.1%]). Higher age, preoperative weight loss, higher ASA-score, higher N-stage, neoadjuvant chemotherapy, or no neoadjuvant therapy (compared with neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy), open surgery, and resection before 2014 were associated with failure to cure. After case-mix correction, 2 hospitals had statistically significant higher failure to cure percentages, whereas 2 had lower percentages. Of 151 salvage esophagectomy patients, 32.5% had failure to cure. The failure to cure rate after salvage surgery was 27.6% in high-volume hospitals and 47.6% in medium-volume hospitals. Conclusions: The incidence of failure to cure was 10.7%. Given the significant hospital variation in the percentage of failure to cure, improvement is needed. Since salvage procedures are more often successful in high-volume hospitals, further centralization of this procedure is warranted.

Objective: This study investigated the patterns, predictors, and survival of recurrent disease following esophageal cancer surgery. Background: Survival of recurrent esophageal cancer is usually poor, with limited prospects of remission.Methods: This nationwide cohort study included patients with distal esophageal and gastroesophageal junction adenocarcinoma and squamous cell carcinoma after curatively intended esophagectomy in 2007 to 2016 (follow-up until January 2020). Patients with distant metastases detected From the