No abstract

Objective response assessment is important to describe the treatment effect of anticancer drugs. Standardization by using a "common language" is also important for comparison of results from different trials. In contrast to clinical results, which can be subjective, diagnostic imaging provides a greater opportunity for objectivity and standardization. It was generally accepted that a decrease in tumor size correlated with treatment effect; as a result, imaging was adopted for lesion measurement in the World Health Organization (WHO) criteria in 1979. However, because of some limitations of the WHO criteria, the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) were introduced in 2000. In RECIST, imaging was recognized as indispensable for response evaluation of solid tumors. Nevertheless, the widespread use of multidetector computed tomography and other imaging innovations have made RECIST outdated, with a concomitant need for modifications. Meanwhile, newer anticancer agents with targeted mechanisms of action have demonstrated an inherent limitation and unsuitability of anatomic tumor evaluation that assesses only lesion size. In addition, the effect of these new drugs changes the paradigm according to which tumor response or response rate is measured. Complete and partial responses cannot be the end points in all clinical trials; in some cases, disease control or progression-free survival may be the more relevant end point.

BackgroundA Swedish version of the USA Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality “Hospital Survey on Patient Safety Culture” (S-HSOPSC) was developed to be used in both hospitals and primary care. Two new dimensions with two and four questions each were added as well as one outcome measure. This paper describes this Swedish version and an assessment of its psychometric properties which were tested on a large sample of responses from personnel in both hospital and primary care.MethodsThe questionnaire was mainly administered in web form and 84215 forms were returned (response rate 60%) between 2009 and 2011. Eleven per cent of the responses came from primary care workers and 46% from hospital care workers. The psychometric properties were analyzed using both the total sample and the hospital and primary care subsamples by assessment of construct validity and internal consistency. Construct validity was assessed by confirmatory (CFA) and exploratory factor (EFA) analyses and internal consistency was established by Cronbachs’s α.ResultsCFA of the total, hospital and primary care samples generally showed a good fit while the EFA pointed towards a 9-factor model in all samples instead of the 14-dimension S-HSOPSC instrument. Internal consistency was acceptable with Cronbach’s α values above 0.7 in a major part of the dimensions.ConclusionsThe S-HSOPSC, consisting of 14 dimensions, 48 items and 3 single-item outcome measures, is used both in hospitals and in primary care settings in Sweden for different purposes. This version of the original American instrument has acceptable construct validity and internal consistency when tested on large datasets of first-time responders from both hospitals and primary care centres. One common instrument for measurements of patient safety culture in both hospitals and primary care settings is an advantage since it enables comparisons between sectors and assessments of national patient safety improvement programs. Future research into this version of the instrument includes comparing results from patient safety culture measurements with other outcomes in relation to safety improvement strategies.

BackgroundApproximately 15 to 30% of colorectal cancers present as an emergency, most often as obstruction or perforation. Studies report poorer outcome for patients who undergo emergency compared with elective surgery, both for their initial hospital stay and their long-term survival. Advanced tumor pathology and tumors with unfavorable histologic features may provide the basis for the difference in outcome. The aim of this study was to compare the clinical and pathologic profiles of emergency and elective surgical cases for colorectal cancer, and relate these to gender, age group, tumor location, and family history of the disease. The main outcome measure was the difference in morphology between elective and emergency surgical cases.MethodsIn total, 976 tumors from patients treated surgically for colorectal cancer between 2004 and 2006 in Stockholm County, Sweden (8 hospitals) were analyzed in the study. Seventeen morphological features were examined and compared with type of operation (elective or emergency), gender, age, tumor location, and family history of colorectal cancer by re-evaluating the histopathologic features of the tumors.ResultsIn a univariate analysis, the following characteristics were found more frequently in emergency compared with elective cases: multiple tumors, higher American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC), tumor (T) and node (N) stage, peri-tumor lymphocytic reaction, high number of tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes, signet-ring cell mucinous carcinoma, desmoplastic stromal reaction, vascular and perineural invasion, and infiltrative tumor margin (P<0.0001 for AJCC stage III to IV, N stage 1 to 2/3, and vascular invasion). In a multivariate analysis, all these differences, with the exception of peri-tumor lymphocytic reaction, remained significant (P<0.0001 for multiple tumors, perineural invasion, infiltrative tumor margin, AJCC stage III, and N stage 1 to 2/3).ConclusionsColorectal cancers that need surgery as an emergency case generally show a more aggressive histopathologic profile and a more advanced stage than do elective cases. Essentially, no difference was seen in location, and therefore it is likely there would be no differences in macro-environment either. Our results could indicate that colorectal cancers needing emergency surgery belong to an inherently specific group with a different etiologic or genetic background.

No abstract