Attenzione: i dati modificati non sono ancora stati salvati. Per confermare inserimenti o cancellazioni di voci è necessario confermare con il tasto SALVA/INSERISCI in fondo alla pagina
CRIS Current Research Information System
Background: Textbook outcome has been proposed as a tool for the assessment of oncological surgical care. However, an international assessment in patients undergoing oesophagectomy for oesophageal cancer has not been reported. This study aimed to assess textbook outcome in an international setting. Methods: Patients undergoing curative resection for oesophageal cancer were identified from the international Oesophagogastric Anastomosis Audit (OGAA) from April 2018 to December 2018. Textbook outcome was defined as the percentage of patients who underwent a complete tumour resection with at least 15 lymph nodes in the resected specimen and an uneventful postoperative course, without hospital readmission. A multivariable binary logistic regression model was used to identify factors independently associated with textbook outcome, and results are presented as odds ratio (OR) and 95 per cent confidence intervals (95 per cent c.i.). Results: Of 2159 patients with oesophageal cancer, 39.7 per cent achieved a textbook outcome. The outcome parameter 'no major postoperative complication' had the greatest negative impact on a textbook outcome for patients with oesophageal cancer, compared to other textbook outcome parameters. Multivariable analysis identified male gender and increasing Charlson comorbidity index with a significantly lower likelihood of textbook outcome. Presence of 24-hour on-call rota for oesophageal surgeons (OR 2.05, 95 per cent c.i. 1.30 to 3.22; P = 0.002) and radiology (OR 1.54, 95 per cent c.i. 1.05 to 2.24; P = 0.027), total minimally invasive oesophagectomies (OR 1.63, 95 per cent c.i. 1.27 to 2.08; P < 0.001), and chest anastomosis above azygous (OR 2.17, 95 per cent c.i. 1.58 to 2.98; P < 0.001) were independently associated with a significantly increased likelihood of textbook outcome. Conclusion: Textbook outcome is achieved in less than 40 per cent of patients having oesophagectomy for cancer. Improvements in centralization, hospital resources, access to minimal access surgery, and adoption of newer techniques for improving lymph node yield could improve textbook outcome.
Kamarajah S.K., Nepogodiev D., Hodson J., Bundred J.R., Gockel I., Isik A., et al. (2022). Textbook outcome following oesophagectomy for cancer: international cohort study. BRITISH JOURNAL OF SURGERY, 109(5), 439-449 [10.1093/bjs/znac016].
Textbook outcome following oesophagectomy for cancer: international cohort study
Kamarajah S. K.;Nepogodiev D.;Hodson J.;Bundred J. R.;Gockel I.;Isik A.;Kidane B.;Mahendran H. A.;Negoi I.;Wijnhoven B. P. L.;Griffiths E. A.;Alderson D.;Jefferies B.;Siaw-Acheampong K.;Wanigasooriya K.;Whitehouse T.;Gjata A.;Moreno J. I.;Takeda F. R.;Castro R. G.;Harustiak T.;Bekele A.;Kechagias A.;Kennedy A.;Da Roit A.;Bagajevas A.;Azagra J. S.;Mejia-Fernandez L.;El Kafsi J.;Sayyed R. H.;Sousa M.;Sampaio A. S.;Blanco R.;Wallner B.;Schneider P. M.;Hsu P. K.;Egberts J. H.;Migliore M.;Valmasoni M.;Medina-Franco H.;Lau P. C.;Okonta K. E.;Heisterkamp J.;Gordon A.;Barbosa J.;Colak E.;Cheong E.;Maynard N.;Al-Bahrani A.;Gananadha S.;Fergusson J.;Beenen E.;Mosse C.;Salim J.;Wills V.;Cheah S.;Wright T.;Cerdeira M. P.;McQuillan P.;Devadas M.;Richardson M.;Liem H.;Duong C.;Spillane J.;Yacob M.;Albadawi F.;Thorpe T.;Dingle A.;Cabalag C.;Talbot M.;Loi K.;Fisher O. M.;Hii M. W.;Ward S.;Read M.;Johnson M.;Jacobs R.;Bassari R.;Bui H.;Cecconello I.;Sallum R. A. A.;Da Rocha J. R. M.;Andreollo N. A.;Lopes L. R.;Tercioti V.;Coelho J. D. S.;Ferrer J. A. P.;Buduhan G.;Tan L.;Srinathan S.;Johnston B.;Shea P.;Darling G.;Yeung J.;Allison F.;Carroll P.;Isaza-Restrepo A.;Vargas-Barato F.;Gonzalez F.;Ortega J.;Nino-Torres L.;Beltran-Garcia T. C.;Rosero G.;Castilla L.;Pineda M.;Arias-Amezquita F.;Bastidas A.;Gomez-Mayorga J.;Cortes N.;Cetares C.;Caceres S.;Duarte S.;Pazdro A.;Snajdauf M.;Faltova H.;Sevcikova M.;Mortensen P. B.;Dikinis S.;Katballe N.;Ingemann T.;Morten B.;Kruhlikava I.;Kjaer D. W.;Larsen M. H.;Ainswort A. P.;Stilling N. M.;Eckardt J.;Achiam M. P.;Holm J.;Thorsteinsson M.;Siemsen M.;Brandt B.;Nega B.;Teferra E.;Tizazu A.;Saarnio J.;Kauppila J. H.;Koivukangas V.;Merilainen S.;Raptis D.;Gruetzmann R.;Krautz C.;Weber G.;Golcher H.;Gaedcke J.;Emons G.;Azizian A.;Ebeling M.;Niebisch S.;Kreuser N.;Albanese G.;Hesse J.;Reim D.;Volovnik L.;Boecher U.;Izbicki J.;Reeh M.;Theodorou D.;Triantafyllou S.;Liakakos T.;Schizas D.;Michalinos A.;Balli E.;Mpoura M.;Charalabopoulos A.;Korkolis D. P.;Manatakis D. K.;Balalis D.;Robb W. B.;Bolger J.;Baban C.;Mastrosimone A.;Collins C.;McAnena O.;Quinn A.;Murphy T.;Suilleabhain C. B. O.;Hennessy M. M.;Ivanovski I.;Khizer H.;Reynolds J.;Ravi N.;Donlon N.;Tonini V.;Cervellera M.;Vaccari S.;Bianchini S.;Sartarelli L.;Bonavina L.;Asti E.;Bernardi D.;Merigliano S.;Provenzano L.;Bardini R.;Scarpa M.;Saadeh L.;Salmaso B.;Weindelmayer J.;De Manzoni G.;Giacopuzzi S.;La Mendola R.;De Pasqual C. A.;Terashima M.;Tsubosa Y.;Niihara M.;Irino T.;Makuuchi R.;Ishii K.;White R. E.;Mwachiro M.;Fekadu A.;Odera A.;Mwachiro E.;Alghunaim E.;AlShehab D.;Elhadi M.;Ahmed H. A.;Shebani A. O.;Elhadi A.;Elnagar F. A.;Elnagar H. F.;Makkai-Popa S. T.;Wong L. F.;Tan Y. R.;Thannimalai S.;Ho C. A.;Pang W. S.;Tan J. H.;Leon-Takahashi A. M.;Basave H. N. L.;Cortes-Gonzalez R.;Lagarde S. M.;Van Lanschot J. J. B.;Cords C.;Jansen W. A.;Martijnse I.;Matthijsen R.;Rosman C.;Bouwense S.;Klarenbeek B.;Verstegen M.;Van Workum F.;Van Hillegersberg R.;Ruurda J. P.;Van Der Sluis P. C.;De Maat M.;Beban G.;Evenett N.;Johnston P.;Patel R.;Babor R.;MacCormick A.;Young M.;Rossaak J. I.;Smith B.;Ekwunife C.;Pal K. M. I.;Memon A. H.;Shaikh K.;Wajid A.;Qureshi A. U.;Khalil N.;Haris M.;Mirza Z. U.;Qudus S. B. A.;Naqi S. A.;Sarwar M. Z.;Shehzadi A.;Raza A.;Jhanzaib M. H.;Farmanali J.;Zakir Z.;Syed A. A.;Shakeel O.;Nasir I.;Khattak S.;Baig M.;Noor M. A.;Ahmed H. H.;Naeem A.;Vicente C. S.;Pinho A. C.;Da Silva R.;Leite J.;Bernardes A.;Campos J. C.;Freire J.;Matos H.;Braga T.;Casaca R.;Monteiro C.;Ramos P.;Cabral F.;Costa R. C. T.;Gomes M. P.;Martins P. C.;Correia A. M.;Videira J. F.;Scurtu R. R.;Ciuce C.;Drasovean R.;Apostu R.;Mogoanta S. S.;Paitici S.;Racu A. E.;Obleaga C. V.;Beuran M.;Stoica B.;Ciubotaru C.;Negoita V.;Bolca C.;Cordos I.;Constantinoiu S.;Birla R. D.;Predescu D.;Hoara P. A.;Tomsa R.;Sekhniaidze D.;Shneider V.;Agasiev M.;Ganjara I.;Bjelovic M.;Gunjic D.;Veselinovic M.;Babic T.;So J. B. Y.;Chin T. S.;Shabbir A.;Kim G.;Gacevski G.;Crnjac A.;Samo H.;Loureiro C.;Diez Del Val I.;Leturio S.;Pera M.;Ramon J. M.;Dal Cero M.;Rifa S.;Rico M.;Bianchi A.;Pagan Pomar A.;Corcoles J. A. M.;Gijon M. M.;Miravalles J. L. R.;Pais S. A.;Turienzo S. A.;Alvarez L. S.;Martin Fernandez J.;Campos P. V.;Rendo A. G.;Garcia S. S.;Santos E. P. G.;Carrera M. S. T.;Martinez E. T.;Diaz M. J. F.;Alvarez C. M.;Vallve-Bernal M.;Martin V. C.;Lopez C. D.;Rodrigo A. R.;Sanchez L. E. P.;Pascual M. A. C.;Cuadrado M. B.;Carrasco C. T.;Bhojwani E. C.;Sanchez D. P.;Elmahi S.;Ahmed M. E.;Halldestam I.;Dzhendov T.;Lindberg F.;Rutegard M.;Hedberg J.;Sundbom M.;Monig S.;Mickael C.;Colucci N.;Gutknecht S.;Schnider A.;Er S.;Tez M.;Kurnaz E.;Guner A.;Turkyilmaz S.;Turkyilmaz A.;Yildirim R.;Baki B. E.;Tirnaksiz M. B.;Akkapulu N.;Sevinc B.;Karahan O.;Damburaci N.;Hindmarsh A.;Hardwick R.;Safranek P.;Sujendran V.;Bennett J.;Afzal Z.;Khan I.;Shrotri M.;Chan B.;Exarchou K.;Gilbert T.;Khoo D.;Amalesh T.;Mukherjee D.;Mukherjee S.;Wiggins T. H.;Kennedy R.;McCain S.;Harris A.;Dobson G.;Byrom R.;Davies N.;Wilson I.;Mayo D.;Bennett D.;Gokhale J.;Young R.;Manby P.;Wilkerson P.;Blencowe N.;Schiller M.;Byrne B.;Jain P.;Mitton D.;Wong V.;Elshaer A.;Cowen M.;Chan D.;Menon V.;Tan L. C.;McLaughlin E.;Koshy R.;Robertson K.;Sharp C.;Iftikhar S.;Brewer H.;Das N.;Cox M.;Al Khyatt W.;Worku D.;Skipworth R.;Iqbal R.;Walls L.;McGregor R.;Forshaw M.;Fullarton G.;Macdonald A.;MacKay C.;Craig C.;Higgs S.;Dwerryhouse S.;Hornby S.;Jaunoo S.;Wadley M.;Gossage J. A.;Baker C.;Saad M.;Kelly M.;Davies A.;Di Maggio F.;Nijjar R.;McKay S.;Mistry P.;Singhal R.;Tucker O.;Kapoulas S.;Powell-Brett S.;Viswanath Y. K. S.;Davis P.;Bromley G.;Watson L.;Turner P.;Verma R.;Ward J.;Shetty V.;Ball C.;Pursnani K.;Dexter S.;Sarela A.;Ling H. S.;Mehta S.;Hayden J.;To N.;Boddy A.;Palser T.;Hunter D.;Supramaniam K.;Butt Z.;Ahmed A.;Allum W. H.;Kumar S.;Chaudry A.;Moussa O.;Kordzadeh A.;Lorenzi B.;Oglesby S.;Wilson M.;Patil P.;Noaman I.;Willem J.;Beardsmore D.;Bouras G.;Evans R.;Singh M.;Warrilow H.;Ahmad A.;Vohra R. S.;Tewari N.;Yanni F.;Couch J.;Theophilidou E.;Reilly J. J.;Singh P.;Van Boxel G.;Akbari K.;Zanotti D.;Sgromo B.;Berrisford R.;Sanders G.;Wheatley T.;Ariyarathenam A.;Reece-Smith A.;Humphreys L.;Mercer S.;Choh C.;Carter N.;Knight B.;Pucher P.;Puig S.;Athanasiou A.;Mohamed I.;Tan B.;Abdulrahman M.;Melhado R.;Vickers J.;Akhtar K.;Chaparala R.;Brown R.;Alasmar M. M. A.;Kelty C.;Ackroyd R.;Patel K.;Tamhankar A.;Wyman A.;Underwood T.;Walker R.;Grace B.;Dawas K.;Abbassi N.;Slim N.;Ioannidi L.;Lewis W.;Blackshaw G.;Havard T.;Escofet X.;Powell A.;Owera A.;Rashid F.;Jambulingam P.;Padickakudi J.;Bryce G.;Ben-Younes H.;Mccormack K.;Thomas M.;Makey I. A.;Arndt A. T.;Karush M. K.;Seder C. W.;Liptay M. J.;Chmielewski G.;Palazzo F.;Rosato E. L.;Berger A. C.;Zheng R.;Okolo E.;Meguid R. A.;Singh A.;Scott C. D.;Weyant M. J.;Mitchell J. D.
2022
Abstract
Background: Textbook outcome has been proposed as a tool for the assessment of oncological surgical care. However, an international assessment in patients undergoing oesophagectomy for oesophageal cancer has not been reported. This study aimed to assess textbook outcome in an international setting. Methods: Patients undergoing curative resection for oesophageal cancer were identified from the international Oesophagogastric Anastomosis Audit (OGAA) from April 2018 to December 2018. Textbook outcome was defined as the percentage of patients who underwent a complete tumour resection with at least 15 lymph nodes in the resected specimen and an uneventful postoperative course, without hospital readmission. A multivariable binary logistic regression model was used to identify factors independently associated with textbook outcome, and results are presented as odds ratio (OR) and 95 per cent confidence intervals (95 per cent c.i.). Results: Of 2159 patients with oesophageal cancer, 39.7 per cent achieved a textbook outcome. The outcome parameter 'no major postoperative complication' had the greatest negative impact on a textbook outcome for patients with oesophageal cancer, compared to other textbook outcome parameters. Multivariable analysis identified male gender and increasing Charlson comorbidity index with a significantly lower likelihood of textbook outcome. Presence of 24-hour on-call rota for oesophageal surgeons (OR 2.05, 95 per cent c.i. 1.30 to 3.22; P = 0.002) and radiology (OR 1.54, 95 per cent c.i. 1.05 to 2.24; P = 0.027), total minimally invasive oesophagectomies (OR 1.63, 95 per cent c.i. 1.27 to 2.08; P < 0.001), and chest anastomosis above azygous (OR 2.17, 95 per cent c.i. 1.58 to 2.98; P < 0.001) were independently associated with a significantly increased likelihood of textbook outcome. Conclusion: Textbook outcome is achieved in less than 40 per cent of patients having oesophagectomy for cancer. Improvements in centralization, hospital resources, access to minimal access surgery, and adoption of newer techniques for improving lymph node yield could improve textbook outcome.
Kamarajah S.K., Nepogodiev D., Hodson J., Bundred J.R., Gockel I., Isik A., et al. (2022). Textbook outcome following oesophagectomy for cancer: international cohort study. BRITISH JOURNAL OF SURGERY, 109(5), 439-449 [10.1093/bjs/znac016].
I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.
Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/11585/903019
Attenzione
Attenzione! I dati visualizzati non sono stati sottoposti a validazione da parte dell'ateneo
Citazioni
0
18
16
social impact
Conferma cancellazione
Sei sicuro che questo prodotto debba essere cancellato?
simulazione ASN
Il report seguente simula gli indicatori relativi alla propria produzione scientifica in relazione alle soglie ASN 2023-2025 del proprio SC/SSD. Si ricorda che il superamento dei valori soglia (almeno 2 su 3) è requisito necessario ma non sufficiente al conseguimento dell'abilitazione. La simulazione si basa sui dati IRIS e sugli indicatori bibliometrici alla data indicata e non tiene conto di eventuali periodi di congedo obbligatorio, che in sede di domanda ASN danno diritto a incrementi percentuali dei valori. La simulazione può differire dall'esito di un’eventuale domanda ASN sia per errori di catalogazione e/o dati mancanti in IRIS, sia per la variabilità dei dati bibliometrici nel tempo. Si consideri che Anvur calcola i valori degli indicatori all'ultima data utile per la presentazione delle domande.
La presente simulazione è stata realizzata sulla base delle specifiche raccolte sul tavolo ER del Focus Group IRIS coordinato dall’Università di Modena e Reggio Emilia e delle regole riportate nel DM 589/2018 e allegata Tabella A. Cineca, l’Università di Modena e Reggio Emilia e il Focus Group IRIS non si assumono alcuna responsabilità in merito all’uso che il diretto interessato o terzi faranno della simulazione. Si specifica inoltre che la simulazione contiene calcoli effettuati con dati e algoritmi di pubblico dominio e deve quindi essere considerata come un mero ausilio al calcolo svolgibile manualmente o con strumenti equivalenti.
