PMCC PMCC

Search tips
Search criteria

Advanced
Results 1-14 (14)
 

Clipboard (0)
None

Select a Filter Below

Journals
Year of Publication
Document Types
author:("bosch, Koop")
1.  Phase II study of docetaxel, cisplatin and capecitabine as preoperative chemotherapy in resectable gastric cancer 
AIM
To investigate the feasibility of preoperative docetaxel, cisplatin and capecitabine (DCC) in patients with resectable gastric cancer.
METHODS
Patients with resectable gastric cancer fulfilling the inclusion criteria, were treated with 4 cycles of docetaxel (60 mg/m2), cisplatin (60 mg/m2) and capecitabine (1.875 mg/m2 orally on day 1-14, two daily doses) repeated every three weeks, followed by surgery. Primary end point was the feasibility and toxicity/safety profile of DCC, secondary endpoints were pathological complete resection rate and pathological complete response (pCR) rate.
RESULTS
All of the patients (51) were assessable for the feasibility and safety of the regimen. The entire preoperative regimen was completed by 68.6% of the patients. Grade III/IV febrile neutropenia occurred in 10% of all courses. Three patients died due to treatment related toxicity (5.9%), one of them (also) because of refusing further treatment for toxicity. Of the 45 patients who were evaluable for secondary endpoints, four developed metastatic disease and 76.5% received a curative resection. In 3 patients a pCR was seen (5.9%), two patients underwent a R1 resection (3.9%).
CONCLUSION
Four courses of DCC as a preoperative regimen for patients with primarily resectable gastric cancer is highly demanding. The high occurrence of febrile neutropenia is of concern. To decrease the occurrence of febrile neutropenia the prophylactic use of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) should be explored. A curative resection rate of 76.5% is acceptable. The use of DCC without G-CSF support as preoperative regimen in resectable gastric cancer is debatable.
doi:10.4240/wjgs.v8.i10.706
PMCID: PMC5081553  PMID: 27830043
Gastric cancer; Preoperative chemotherapy; Docetaxel; Capecitabine
2.  Use of a multi-instrument access device in abdominoperineal resections 
Journal of Minimal Access Surgery  2016;12(3):248-253.
BACKGROUND:
Laparoscopic colorectal surgery results in less post-operative pain, faster recovery, shorter length of stay and reduced morbidity compared with open procedures. Less or minimally invasive techniques have been developed to further minimise surgical trauma and to decrease the size and number of incisions. This study describes the safety and feasibility of using an umbilical multi-instrument access (MIA) port (Olympus TriPort+) device with the placement of just one 12-mm suprapubic trocar in laparoscopic (double-port) abdominoperineal resections (APRs) in rectal cancer patients.
PATIENTS AND METHODS:
The study included 20 patients undergoing double-port APRs for rectal cancer between June 2011 and August 2013. Preoperative data were gathered in a prospective database, and post-operative data were collected retrospectively.
RESULTS:
The 20 patients (30% female) had a median age of 67 years (range 46-80 years), and their median body mass index (BMI) was 26 kg/m2 (range 20-31 kg/m2). An additional third trocar was placed in 2 patients. No laparoscopic procedures were converted to an open procedure. Median operating time was 195 min (range 115-306 min). A radical resection (R0 resection) was achieved in all patients, with a median of 14 lymph nodes harvested. Median length of stay was 8 days (range 5-43 days).
CONCLUSION:
Laparoscopic APR using a MIA trocar is a feasible and safe procedure. A MIA port might be of benefit as an extra option in the toolbox of the laparoscopic surgeon to further minimise surgical trauma.
doi:10.4103/0972-9941.181386
PMCID: PMC4916752  PMID: 27279397
Abdominoperineal resection (APR); laparoscopy; rectal cancer; single-port laparoscopy (SPL)
3.  The Prognostic Value of Microsatellite Instability, KRAS, BRAF and PIK3CA Mutations in Stage II Colon Cancer Patients 
Molecular Medicine  2016;21(1):1038-1046.
In the era of personalized cancer medicine, identifying mutations within patient tumors plays an important role in defining high-risk stage II colon cancer patients. The prognostic role of BRAF V600E mutation, microsatellite instability (MSI) status, KRAS mutation and PIK3CA mutation in stage II colon cancer patients is not settled. We retrospectively analyzed 186 patients with stage II colon cancer who underwent an oncological resection but were not treated with adjuvant chemotherapy. KRAS mutations, PIK3CA mutation, V600E BRAF mutation and MSI status were determined. Survival analyses were performed. Mutations were found in the patients with each mutation in the following percentages: 23% (MSI), 35% (KRAS), 19% (BRAF) and 11% (PIK3CA). A trend toward worse overall survival (OS) was seen in patients with an MSI (5-year OS 74% versus 82%, adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 1.8, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.6–4.9) and a KRAS-mutated tumor (5-year OS 77% versus 82%, adjusted HR 1.7, 95% CI 0.8–3.5). MSI and BRAF-mutated tumors tended to correlate with poorer disease-free survival (DFS) (5-year DFS 60% versus 78%, adjusted HR 1.6, 95% CI 0.5–2.1 and 5-year DFS 57% versus 77%, adjusted HR 1.1, 95% CI 0.4–2.6 respectively). In stage II colon cancer patients not treated with adjuvant chemotherapy, BRAF mutation and MSI status both tended to have a negative prognostic effect on disease-free survival. KRAS and MSI status also tended to be correlated with worse overall survival.
doi:10.2119/molmed.2015.00220
PMCID: PMC4982476  PMID: 26716438
4.  Impact of anaesthetic technique on survival in colon cancer: a review of the literature 
Gastroenterology Report  2015;4(1):30-34.
An oncological surgical resection is the mainstay of treatment for potentially curable colon cancer. At the time of surgery, a large fraction of patients do harbour—although not visibly—minimal residual disease at the time of surgery. The immunosuppression that accompanies surgery may have an effect on disease recurrence and survival. Regional or neuraxial anaesthetic techniques like epidural anaesthesia may suppress immune function less than opioid analgesia, by reducing stress response and significantly reducing exposure to opioids. Consistent with this hypothesis, regional anaesthetic techniques have been associated with lower recurrence rates in breast cancer and prostate cancer. Results for colon cancer, however, are contradictory. In this review of the literature we describe all studies addressing the association of the use of epidural anaesthesia and survival in colon cancer surgery.
doi:10.1093/gastro/gov001
PMCID: PMC4760063  PMID: 25688100
colon cancer; epidural anaesthesia; immunosuppression; survival
5.  Outcomes of Distal Pancreatectomy for Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma in the Netherlands: A Nationwide Retrospective Analysis 
Annals of Surgical Oncology  2015;23:585-591.
Background
Large multicenter series on outcomes and predictors of survival after distal pancreatectomy (DP) for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) are scarce.
Methods
Adults who underwent DP for PDAC in 17 Dutch pancreatic centers between January 2005 and September 2013 were analyzed retrospectively. The primary outcome was survival, and predictors of survival were identified using Cox regression analysis.
Results
In total, 761 consecutive patients after DP were assessed, of whom 620 patients were excluded because of non-PDAC histopathology (n = 616) or a lack of data (n = 4), leaving a total of 141 patients included in the study [45 % (n = 63) male, mean age 64 years (SD = 10)]. Multivisceral resection was performed in 43 patients (30 %) and laparoscopic resection was performed in 7 patients (5 %). A major complication (Clavien–Dindo score of III or higher) occurred in 46 patients (33 %). Mean tumor size was 44 mm (SD 23), and histopathological examination showed 70 R0 resections (50 %), while 30-day and 90-day mortality was 3 and 6 %, respectively. Overall, 63 patients (45 %) received adjuvant chemotherapy. Median survival was 17 months [interquartile range (IQR) 13–21], with a median follow-up of 17 months (IQR 8–29). Cumulative survival at 1, 3 and 5 years was 64, 29, and 22 %, respectively. Independent predictors of worse postoperative survival were R1/R2 resection [hazard ratio (HR) 1.6, 95 % confidence interval (CI) 1.1–2.4], pT3/pT4 stage (HR 1.9, 95 % CI 1.3–2.9), a major complication (HR 1.7, 95 % CI 1.1–2.5), and not receiving adjuvant chemotherapy (HR 1.5, 95 % CI 1.0–2.3).
Conclusion
Survival after DP for PDAC is poor and is related to resection margin, tumor stage, surgical complications, and adjuvant chemotherapy. Further studies should assess to what extent prevention of surgical complications and more extensive use of adjuvant chemotherapy can improve survival.
doi:10.1245/s10434-015-4930-4
PMCID: PMC4718962  PMID: 26508153
6.  Single-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy vs standard laparoscopic cholecystectomy: A non-randomized, age-matched single center trial 
AIM: To compare the safety of single-port laparoscopic cholecystectomies with standard four-port cholecystectomies.
METHODS: Between January 2011 and December 2012 datas were gathered from 100 consecutive patients who received a single-port cholecystectomy. Patient baseline characteristics of all 100 single-port cholecystectomies were collected (body mass index, age, etc.) in a database. This group was compared with 100 age-matched patients who underwent a conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy in the same period. Retrospectively, per- and postoperative data were added. The two groups were compared to each other using independent t-tests and χ2-tests, P values below 0.05 were considered significantly different.
RESULTS: No differences were found between both groups regarding baseline characteristics. Operating time was significantly shorter in the total single-port group (42 min vs 62 min, P < 0.05); in procedures performed by surgeons the same trend was seen (45 min vs 59 min, P < 0.05). Peroperative complications between both groups were equal (3 in the single-port group vs 5 in the multiport group; P = 0.42). Although not significant less postoperative complications were seen in the single-port group compared with the multiport group (3 vs 9; P = 0.07). No statistically significant differences were found between both groups with regard to length of hospital stay, readmissions and mortality.
CONCLUSION: Single-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy has the potential to be a safe technique with a low complication rate, short in-hospital stay and comparable operating time. Single-port cholecystectomy provides the patient an almost non-visible scar while preserving optimal quality of surgery. Further prospective studies are needed to prove the safety of the single-port technique.
doi:10.4240/wjgs.v7.i8.145
PMCID: PMC4550841  PMID: 26328034
Single-port; Minimal invasive; Laparoscopy; Safety; Feasibility; Cholecystectomy
7.  Transluminal endoscopic step-up approach versus minimally invasive surgical step-up approach in patients with infected necrotising pancreatitis (TENSION trial): design and rationale of a randomised controlled multicenter trial [ISRCTN09186711] 
BMC Gastroenterology  2013;13:161.
Background
Infected necrotising pancreatitis is a potentially lethal disease that nearly always requires intervention. Traditionally, primary open necrosectomy has been the treatment of choice. In recent years, the surgical step-up approach, consisting of percutaneous catheter drainage followed, if necessary, by (minimally invasive) surgical necrosectomy has become the standard of care. A promising minimally invasive alternative is the endoscopic transluminal step-up approach. This approach consists of endoscopic transluminal drainage followed, if necessary, by endoscopic transluminal necrosectomy. We hypothesise that the less invasive endoscopic step-up approach is superior to the surgical step-up approach in terms of clinical and economic outcomes.
Methods/Design
The TENSION trial is a randomised controlled, parallel-group superiority multicenter trial. Patients with (suspected) infected necrotising pancreatitis with an indication for intervention and in whom both treatment modalities are deemed possible, will be randomised to either an endoscopic transluminal or a surgical step-up approach. During a 4 year study period, 98 patients will be enrolled from 24 hospitals of the Dutch Pancreatitis Study Group. The primary endpoint is a composite of death and major complications within 6 months following randomisation. Secondary endpoints include complications such as pancreaticocutaneous fistula, exocrine or endocrine pancreatic insufficiency, need for additional radiological, endoscopic or surgical intervention, the need for necrosectomy after drainage, the number of (re-)interventions, quality of life, and total direct and indirect costs.
Discussion
The TENSION trial will answer the question whether an endoscopic step-up approach reduces the combined primary endpoint of death and major complications, as well as hospital stay and related costs compared with a surgical step-up approach in patients with infected necrotising pancreatitis.
doi:10.1186/1471-230X-13-161
PMCID: PMC4222267  PMID: 24274589
Acute pancreatitis; Necrotising; Treatment; Drainage; Trial; Endoscopy; Minimally invasive; Surgery; Necrosectomy; Pancreas
8.  Pancreatitis of biliary origin, optimal timing of cholecystectomy (PONCHO trial): study protocol for a randomized controlled trial 
Trials  2012;13:225.
Background
After an initial attack of biliary pancreatitis, cholecystectomy minimizes the risk of recurrent biliary pancreatitis and other gallstone-related complications. Guidelines advocate performing cholecystectomy within 2 to 4 weeks after discharge for mild biliary pancreatitis. During this waiting period, the patient is at risk of recurrent biliary events. In current clinical practice, surgeons usually postpone cholecystectomy for 6 weeks due to a perceived risk of a more difficult dissection in the early days following pancreatitis and for logistical reasons. We hypothesize that early laparoscopic cholecystectomy minimizes the risk of recurrent biliary pancreatitis or other complications of gallstone disease in patients with mild biliary pancreatitis without increasing the difficulty of dissection and the surgical complication rate compared with interval laparoscopic cholecystectomy.
Methods/Design
PONCHO is a randomized controlled, parallel-group, assessor-blinded, superiority multicenter trial. Patients are randomly allocated to undergo early laparoscopic cholecystectomy, within 72 hours after randomization, or interval laparoscopic cholecystectomy, 25 to 30 days after randomization. During a 30-month period, 266 patients will be enrolled from 18 hospitals of the Dutch Pancreatitis Study Group. The primary endpoint is a composite endpoint of mortality and acute re-admissions for biliary events (that is, recurrent biliary pancreatitis, acute cholecystitis, symptomatic/obstructive choledocholithiasis requiring endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreaticography including cholangitis (with/without endoscopic sphincterotomy), and uncomplicated biliary colics) occurring within 6 months following randomization. Secondary endpoints include the individual endpoints of the composite endpoint, surgical and other complications, technical difficulty of cholecystectomy and costs.
Discussion
The PONCHO trial is designed to show that early laparoscopic cholecystectomy (within 72 hours) reduces the combined endpoint of mortality and re-admissions for biliary events as compared with interval laparoscopic cholecystectomy (between 25 and 30 days) after recovery of a first episode of mild biliary pancreatitis.
Trial registration
Current Controlled Trials: ISRCTN72764151
doi:10.1186/1745-6215-13-225
PMCID: PMC3517749  PMID: 23181667
Acute pancreatitis; Gallstones; Trial; Common bile duct; Cholecystitis; Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreaticography; Surgery; Cholecystectomy; Timing; Mortality
9.  SUBMIT: Systemic therapy with or without up front surgery of the primary tumor in breast cancer patients with distant metastases at initial presentation 
BMC Surgery  2012;12:5.
Background
Five percent of all patients with breast cancer have distant metastatic disease at initial presentation. Because metastatic breast cancer is considered to be an incurable disease, it is generally treated with a palliative intent. Recent non-randomized studies have demonstrated that (complete) resection of the primary tumor is associated with a significant improvement of the survival of patients with primary metastatic breast cancer. However, other studies have suggested that the claimed survival benefit by surgery may be caused by selection bias. Therefore, a randomized controlled trial will be performed to assess whether breast surgery in patients with primary distant metastatic breast cancer will improve the prognosis.
Design
Randomization will take place after the diagnosis of primary distant metastatic breast cancer. Patients will either be randomized to up front surgery of the breast tumor followed by systemic therapy or to systemic therapy, followed by delayed local treatment of the breast tumor if clinically indicated.
Patients with primary distant metastatic breast cancer, with no prior treatment of the breast cancer, who are 18 years or older and fit enough to undergo surgery and systemic therapy are eligible. Important exclusion criteria are: prior invasive breast cancer, surgical treatment or radiotherapy of this breast tumor before randomization, irresectable T4 tumor and synchronous bilateral breast cancer. The primary endpoint is 2-year survival. Quality of life and local tumor control are among the secondary endpoints.
Based on the results of prior research it was calculated that 258 patients are needed in each treatment arm, assuming a power of 80%. Total accrual time is expected to take 60 months. An interim analysis will be performed to assess any clinically significant safety concerns and to determine whether there is evidence that up front surgery is clinically or statistically inferior to systemic therapy with respect to the primary endpoint.
Discussion
The SUBMIT study is a randomized controlled trial that will provide evidence on whether or not surgery of the primary tumor in breast cancer patients with metastatic disease at initial presentation results in an improved survival.
Trial registration
NCT01392586.
doi:10.1186/1471-2482-12-5
PMCID: PMC3348008  PMID: 22469291
Primary metastatic breast cancer; surgery; randomised controlled trial
10.  A case of bowel entrapment after penetrating injury of the pelvis: don't forget the omentumplasty 
Bowel entrapment within a pelvic injury is rare and difficult to diagnose. Usually, it is diagnosed late because of concomitant abdominal injuries. It may present itself as an acute intestinal obstruction or, more commonly, as a prolonged or intermittent ileus. Therefore, one should be aware of this late complication and primarily take measures for avoiding bowel entrapment. This report describes an unusual case of bowel entrapment within a pelvic fracture after a penetrating injury, and discusses options for preventing such a complication.
doi:10.1186/1757-7241-19-34
PMCID: PMC3123199  PMID: 21663625
11.  The influence of micrometastases on prognosis and survival in stage I-II colon cancer patients: the Enroute⊕ Study 
BMC Surgery  2011;11:11.
Background
The presence of lymph node metastases remains the most reliable prognostic predictor and the gold indicator for adjuvant treatment in colon cancer (CC). In spite of a potentially curative resection, 20 to 30% of CC patients testing negative for lymph node metastases (i.e. pN0) will subsequently develop locoregional and/or systemic metastases within 5 years. The presence of occult nodal isolated tumor cells (ITCs) and/or micrometastases (MMs) at the time of resection predisposes CC patients to high risk for disease recurrence. These pN0micro+ patients harbouring occult micrometastases may benefit from adjuvant treatment. The purpose of the present study is to delineate the subset of pN0 patients with micrometastases (pN0micro+) and evaluate the benefits from adjuvant chemotherapy in pN0micro+ CC patients.
Methods/design
EnRoute+ is an open label, multicenter, randomized controlled clinical trial. All CC patients (age above 18 years) without synchronous locoregional lymph node and/or systemic metastases (clinical stage I-II disease) and operated upon with curative intent are eligible for inclusion. All resected specimens of patients are subject to an ex vivo sentinel lymph node mapping procedure (SLNM) following curative resection. The investigation for micrometastases in pN0 patients is done by extended serial sectioning and immunohistochemistry for pan-cytokeratin in sentinel lymph nodes which are tumour negative upon standard pathological examination. Patients with ITC/MM-positive sentinel lymph nodes (pN0micro+) are randomized for adjuvant chemotherapy following the CAPOX treatment scheme or observation. The primary endpoint is 3-year disease free survival (DFS).
Discussion
The EnRoute+ study is designed to improve prognosis in high-risk stage I/II pN0 micro+ CC patients by reducing disease recurrence by adjuvant chemotherapy.
Trial Registration
ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01097265
doi:10.1186/1471-2482-11-11
PMCID: PMC3123166  PMID: 21569373
12.  Pancreatitis, very early compared with normal start of enteral feeding (PYTHON trial): design and rationale of a randomised controlled multicenter trial 
Trials  2011;12:73.
Background
In predicted severe acute pancreatitis, infections have a negative effect on clinical outcome. A start of enteral nutrition (EN) within 24 hours of onset may reduce the number of infections as compared to the current practice of starting an oral diet and EN if necessary at 3-4 days after admission.
Methods/Design
The PYTHON trial is a randomised controlled, parallel-group, superiority multicenter trial. Patients with predicted severe acute pancreatitis (Imrie-score ≥ 3 or APACHE-II score ≥ 8 or CRP > 150 mg/L) will be randomised to EN within 24 hours or an oral diet and EN if necessary, after 72 hours after hospital admission.
During a 3-year period, 208 patients will be enrolled from 20 hospitals of the Dutch Pancreatitis Study Group. The primary endpoint is a composite of mortality or infections (bacteraemia, infected pancreatic or peripancreatic necrosis, pneumonia) during hospital stay or within 6 months following randomisation. Secondary endpoints include other major morbidity (e.g. new onset organ failure, need for intervention), intolerance of enteral feeding and total costs from a societal perspective.
Discussion
The PYTHON trial is designed to show that a very early (< 24 h) start of EN reduces the combined endpoint of mortality or infections as compared to the current practice of an oral diet and EN if necessary at around 72 hours after admission for predicted severe acute pancreatitis.
Trial Registration
ISRCTN: ISRCTN18170985
doi:10.1186/1745-6215-12-73
PMCID: PMC3068962  PMID: 21392395
13.  Pelvic sepsis after stapled hemorrhoidopexy 
Stapled hemorrhoidopexy is a surgical procedure used worldwide for the treatment of grade III and IV hemorrhoids in all age groups. However, life-threatening complications occur occasionally. The following case report describes the development of pelvic sepsis after stapled hemorrhoidopexy. A literature review of techniques used to manage major septic complications after stapled hemorrhoidopexy was performed. There is no standardized treatment currently available. Stapled hemorrhoidopexy is a safe, effective and time-efficient procedure in the hands of experienced colorectal surgeons.
doi:10.3748/wjg.14.5924
PMCID: PMC2751907  PMID: 18855996
Hemorrhoids; Hemorrhoids/treatment; Sepsis; Stapled hemorrhoidopexy; Circular mucosectomy
14.  Preoperative biliary drainage for periampullary tumors causing obstructive jaundice; DRainage vs. (direct) OPeration (DROP-trial) 
BMC Surgery  2007;7:3.
Background
Surgery in patients with obstructive jaundice caused by a periampullary (pancreas, papilla, distal bile duct) tumor is associated with a higher risk of postoperative complications than in non-jaundiced patients. Preoperative biliary drainage was introduced in an attempt to improve the general condition and thus reduce postoperative morbidity and mortality. Early studies showed a reduction in morbidity. However, more recently the focus has shifted towards the negative effects of drainage, such as an increase of infectious complications. Whether biliary drainage should always be performed in jaundiced patients remains controversial. The randomized controlled multicenter DROP-trial (DRainage vs. Operation) was conceived to compare the outcome of a 'preoperative biliary drainage strategy' (standard strategy) with that of an 'early-surgery' strategy, with respect to the incidence of severe complications (primary-outcome measure), hospital stay, number of invasive diagnostic tests, costs, and quality of life.
Methods/design
Patients with obstructive jaundice due to a periampullary tumor, eligible for exploration after staging with CT scan, and scheduled to undergo a "curative" resection, will be randomized to either "early surgical treatment" (within one week) or "preoperative biliary drainage" (for 4 weeks) and subsequent surgical treatment (standard treatment). Primary outcome measure is the percentage of severe complications up to 90 days after surgery. The sample size calculation is based on the equivalence design for the primary outcome measure. If equivalence is found, the comparison of the secondary outcomes will be essential in selecting the preferred strategy. Based on a 40% complication rate for early surgical treatment and 48% for preoperative drainage, equivalence is taken to be demonstrated if the percentage of severe complications with early surgical treatment is not more than 10% higher compared to standard treatment: preoperative biliary drainage. Accounting for a 10% dropout, 105 patients are needed in each arm resulting in a study population of 210 (alpha = 0.95, beta = 0.8).
Discussion
The DROP-trial is a randomized controlled multicenter trial that will provide evidence whether or not preoperative biliary drainage is to be performed in patients with obstructive jaundice due to a periampullary tumor.
doi:10.1186/1471-2482-7-3
PMCID: PMC1828149  PMID: 17352805

Results 1-14 (14)