Date of Publication: 30-Nov--0001
Observatory of the Quality of Surgical Procedures for Digestive Cancers in Morocco (Obchir):
Protocol of a Prospective, Multicentric Cohort Study (Pilot study)
Author: Amine Souadka, Mohammed Anass Majbar, Khalid El Himdi, Ismail Kassou, Hind Mrabti, Tijani El Harroudi, Mohammed Ahallat, Abdelkader Belkouchi, Raouf Mohsine, Abdelmalek Hrora, Amine Benkabbou
Category: JMSR Oncology
Background: Surgical audit experiments have shown a positive, rapid and cost-effective impact on complication rates, recurrence rates, and overall survival even in the absence of interventional measures in digestive cancers. This study audit the quality of surgical procedures for digestive cancers.
Methods: This is a multicentric prospective non-comparative observational study performed in 4 surgical departments in 2 university centers. Eligible patients are adults scheduled for elective surgery for a proven or suspected digestive cancer, in a curative or palliative intent; or included no later than 72 hours after surgery in case of an emergent procedure. The Cancer should be proven or suspected in the following digestive tract: colon, appendix, anus, rectum, esophagus, stomach, esogastric junction, bile ducts, ampulla of Vater, pancreas, duodenum, small intestine and liver. Patients are excluded in case of 1) surgical intervention indicated for: a condition that is not a digestive tract cancer; 2) proven or suspected cancer of non-digestive location 3) a proven or suspected cancer of peritoneal localization. 4) surgical intervention indicated for a progressive disease or a local recurrence proven or suspected of a digestive localization cancer having already been resected (with the exception of situations of iterative liver resection for liver metastasis hepatic and recovery of the tumor bed after the discovery of vesicular cancer on cholecystectomy specimen); 5) intervention is for diagnostic purposes without any curative or palliative intention
A total of 1500 patients is expected. The primary objectives of this study are to assess both 90 days of post-operative outcomes and three years oncological outcomes for patient operated for each included digestive cancer. Secondary objectives arre 1)to analyze treatment decisions made within multidisciplinary team meeting/tumour board for every localization and the completion of preoperative workup staging according to local guidelines and 2) to determine the impact of reporting anonymous trimestrial feedback to surgeons on improving their surgical performance and outcomes 3) To assess quality of life in patient operated for colorectal cancer in curative intent.
Discussion: This is the first multicentric north african registry assessing the quality of surgical procedures for digestive tract cancer and analyzing the impact of reporting sequential anonymous feedback to the surgeon on quality improvement.
Keywords: Qualtiy, Rectal Neoplasms, Digestive cancer, obsergatory, Multicentric cohort study, Surgical procedures
1. NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology. https://www.nccn.org/professionals/physician_gls/default.aspx. Accessed 30 May 2019.
2. ESMO. Oncology Clinical Practice Guidelines | ESMO. https://www.esmo.org/Guidelines. Accessed 30 May 2019.
3. TNCD | SNFGE.org - Société savante médicale française d’hépato-gastroentérologie et d'oncologie digestive. https://www.snfge.org/tncd. Accessed 30 May 2019.
4. Molena D, Mungo B, Stem M, Poupore AK, Chen SY, Lidor AO. Does Quality of Care Matter? A Study of Adherence to National Comprehensive Cancer Network Guidelines for Patients with Locally Advanced Esophageal Cancer. Journal of Gastrointestinal Surgery. 2015;19:1739–47. doi:10.1007/s11605-015-2899-8.
5. Henry LR, von Holzen UW, Minarich MJ, Hardy AN, Beachy WA, Franger MS, et al. Quality measurement affecting surgical practice: Utility versus utopia. Am J Surg. 2018;215:357–66.
6. van Gijn W, van de Velde CJH. Improving quality of cancer care through surgical audit. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2010;36:S23–6.
7. Maruthappu M, Trehan A, Barnett-Vanes A, McCulloch P, Carty MJ. The impact of feedback of surgical outcome data on surgical performance: a systematic review. World J Surg. 2015;39:879–89.
8. Le PNPCC. http://www.contrelecancer.ma/fr/le_pnpcc. Accessed 31 May 2019.
9. Ramke J, Palagyi A, Jordan V, Petkovic J, Gilbert CE. Using the STROBE statement to assess reporting in blindness prevalence surveys in low and middle income countries. PLoS One. 2017;12:e0176178.
10. Ramke J, Palagyi A, Petkovic J, Gilbert CE. Reporting of inequalities in blindness in low income and middle income countries: a review of cross sectional surveys. Clinical & Experimental Ophthalmology. 2018;46:99–100. doi:10.1111/ceo.13001.
11. Moroccan society of surgery. Accueil. National moroccan guidielines for digestive cancers’s surgery. 2017. http://somachir.com/index.php/9-referentiels. Accessed 30 May 2019.
12. Dindo D, Demartines N, Clavien P-A. Classification of surgical complications: a new proposal with evaluation in a cohort of 6336 patients and results of a survey. Ann Surg. 2004;240:205–13.
13. Nejjari C, El Fakir S, Bendahhou K, El Rhazi K, Abda N, Zidouh A, et al. Translation and validation of European organization for research and treatment of cancer quality of life Questionnaire -C30 into Moroccan version for cancer patients in Morocco. BMC Res Notes. 2014;7:228.
14. Ameri H, Yousefi M, Yaseri M, Nahvijou A, Arab M, Akbari Sari A. Mapping EORTC-QLQ-C30 and QLQ-CR29 onto EQ-5D-5L in Colorectal Cancer Patients. J Gastrointest Cancer. 2019. doi:10.1007/s12029-019-00229-6.
15. Schrem H, Volz S, Koch H-F, Gwiasda J, Kürsch P, Goldis A, et al. Statistical approach to quality assessment in liver transplantation. Langenbecks Arch Surg. 2018;403:61–71.
16. Montroy J, Breau RH, Cnossen S, Witiuk K, Binette A, Ferrier T, et al. Change in Adverse Events After Enrollment in the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. PLoS One. 2016;11:e0146254.
17. Haynes AB, Weiser TG, Berry WR, Lipsitz SR, Breizat A-HS, Patchen Dellinger E, et al. A Surgical Safety Checklist to Reduce Morbidity and Mortality in a Global Population. New England Journal of Medicine. 2009;360:491–9. doi:10.1056/nejmsa0810119.
18. Gurien LA, Ra JH, Kerwin AJ, Nussbaum MS, Crandall M, deVilla J, et al. National Surgical Quality Improvement Program integration with Morbidity and Mortality conference is essential to success in the march to zero. Am J Surg. 2016;212:623–8.
19. Birkmeyer JD, Finlayson EV, Birkmeyer CM. Volume standards for high-risk surgical procedures: potential benefits of the Leapfrog initiative. Surgery. 2001;130:415–22.
20. Aquina CT, Becerra AZ, Xu Z, Justiniano C, Peyre CG, Linehan D, et al. Can high-volume surgeons achieve optimal outcomes at low-volume hospitals? Implications for the Leapfrog Initiative and regionalization of high-risk surgical oncology procedures. Journal of Clinical Oncology. 2019;37:6585–6585. doi:10.1200/jco.2019.37.15_suppl.6585.
21. Breugom AJ, Boelens PG, van den Broek CBM, Cervantes A, Van Cutsem E, Schmoll HJ, et al. Quality assurance in the treatment of colorectal cancer: the EURECCA initiative. Ann Oncol. 2014;25:1485–92.
22. Wibe A, Møller B, Norstein J, Carlsen E, Wiig JN, Heald RJ, et al. A National Strategic Change in Treatment Policy for Rectal Cancer—Implementation of Total Mesorectal Excision as Routine Treatment in Norway. A National Audit. Diseases of the Colon & Rectum. 2002;45:857–66. doi:10.1007/s10350-004-6317-7.
23. Påhlman L, Bohe M, Cedermark B, Dahlberg M, Lindmark G, Sjödahl R, et al. The Swedish rectal cancer registry. British Journal of Surgery. 2007;94:1285–92. doi:10.1002/bjs.5679.
24. Harling H, Bulow S, Kronborg O, Moller LN, Jorgensen T, the Danish Colorectal Cancer Group*. Survival of rectal cancer patients in Denmark during 1994-99. Colorectal Disease. 2004;6:153–7. doi:10.1111/j.1463-1318.2004.00633.x.
25. Report of The National Bowel Cancer Audit Programme “NBOCAP Report 2009. . http://www.nbocap.org.uk/resources/reports/NBOCAP_ 2009.pdf. Accessed 30 May 2019.
26. Messager M, de Steur W, Boelens PG, Jensen LS, Mariette C, Reynolds JV, et al. Description and analysis of clinical pathways for oesophago-gastric adenocarcinoma, in 10 European countries (the EURECCA upper gastro intestinal group - European Registration of Cancer Care). Eur J Surg Oncol. 2016;42:1432–47.
27. de Leede EM, Sibinga Mulder BG, Bastiaannet E, Poston GJ, Sahora K, Van Eycken E, et al. Common variables in European pancreatic cancer registries: The introduction of the EURECCA pancreatic cancer project. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2016;42:1414–9.