Changes in treatment and outcome of oesophageal cancer in Denmark between 2004 and 2013. BJS 2017; 104: 1338-1345.
Published: 18th July 2017
Authors: D. W. Kjaer, H. Larsson, L. B. Svendsen, L. S. Jensen
Since 2003, care for patients with oesophageal cancer has been centralized in a few dedicated centres in Denmark. The aim of this study was to assess changes in the treatment and outcome of patients registered in a nationwide database.
All patients diagnosed with oesophageal cancer or cancer of the gastro‐oesophageal junction who underwent oesophagectomy in Denmark between 2004 and 2013, and who were registered in the Danish clinical database of carcinomas in the oesophagus, gastro‐oesophageal junction and stomach (
Some 6178 patients were included, of whom 1728 underwent oesophagectomy. The overall number of patients with 15 or more lymph nodes in the resection specimen increased from 38·1 per cent in 2004 to 88·7 per cent in 2013. The anastomotic leak rate decreased from 14·8 to 7·6 per cent (
Indicators of quality of care have improved since the centralization of oesophageal cancer treatment in Denmark.Read more
You may also be interested in
Cost‐effectiveness analysis of stent type in endoscopic treatment of gastric leak after laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy.
Authors: C. Cosse, L. Rebibo, F. Brazier, S. Hakim, R. Delcenserie, J. M. Regimbeau et al.
Notes: Double pigtail is better
Authors: R. T. van der Kaaij, M. V. de Rooij, F. van Coevorden, F. E. M. Voncken, P. Snaebjornsson, H. Boot et al.
Notes: Quality of care in one number
[18F]Fluorodeoxyglucose PET/CT and prediction of histopathological response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy for adenocarcinoma of the oesophagus and oesophagogastric junction. BJS 2018; 105: 419-428.
Authors: T. Harustiak, M. Zemanova, P. Fencl, L. Hornofova, A. Pazdro, M. Snajdauf et al.
Notes: Of no use
Meta‐analysis of delayed gastric emptying after pylorus‐preserving versus pylorus‐resecting pancreatoduodenectomy. BJS 2018; 105: 339-349.
Authors: U. Klaiber, P. Probst, O. Strobel, C. W. Michalski, C. Dörr‐Harim, M. K. Diener et al.
Notes: No difference
Intrathoracic versus cervical anastomosis and predictors of anastomotic leakage after oesophagectomy for cancer.
Authors: J. A. H. Gooszen, L. Goense, S. S. Gisbertz, J. P. Ruurda, R. van Hillegersberg, M. I. van Berge Henegouwen et al.
Notes: Chest lower leak rates
Meta‐analysis of metabolic surgery versus medical treatment for microvascular complications in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. BJS 2018; 105: 168-181.
Authors: A. T. Billeter, K. M. Scheurlen, P. Probst, S. Eichel, F. Nickel, S. Kopf et al.
Notes: Surgery is better
Health‐related quality of life after open transhiatal and transthoracic oesophagectomy for cancer. BJS 2018; 105: 230-236.
Authors: J. H. Kauppila, A. Johar, J. A. Gossage, A. R. Davies, J. Zylstra, J. Lagergren et al.
Notes: Favours transhiatal
Patient‐derived organoid models help define personalized management of gastrointestinal cancer. BJS 2018; 105: e48-e60.
Authors: M. R. Aberle, R. A. Burkhart, H. Tiriac, S. W. M. Olde Damink, C. H. C. Dejong, D. A. Tuveson et al.
Notes: Accelerating the science of personal care
Meta‐analysis of the prognostic value of CpG island methylator phenotype in gastric cancer. BJS 2018; 105: e61-e68.
Authors: A. G. M. T. Powell, S. Soul, A. Christian, W. G. Lewis
Notes: Heterogeneity in gene panels used
Authors: K. Boye, J.‐M. Berner, I. Hompland, Ø. S. Bruland, S. Stoldt, K. Sundby Hall et al.
Notes: Handle with care
Outcomes after prophylactic gastrectomy for hereditary diffuse gastric cancer. BJS 2018; 105: e176-e182.
Authors: R. T. van der Kaaij, J. P. van Kessel, J. M. van Dieren, P. Snaebjornsson, O. Balagué, F. van Coevorden et al.
Notes: Frozen section of margins is key
Circulating tumour cells and DNA as liquid biopsies in gastrointestinal cancer. BJS 2018; 105: e110-e120.
Authors: O. Nordgård, K. Tjensvoll, B. Gilje, K. Søreide
Notes: The inner space frontier