Background: Preoperative planning of patients diagnosed with pancreatic head cancer is difficult and requires specific expertise. This pilot study assesses the added value of three-dimensional (3D) patient models and computer-aided detection (CAD) algorithms in determining the resectability of pancreatic head tumors. Methods: This study included 14 hepatopancreatobiliary experts from eight hospitals. The participants assessed three radiologically resectable and three radiologically borderline resectable cases in a simulated setting via crossover design. Groups were divided in controls (using a CT scan), a 3D group (using a CT scan and 3D models), and a CAD group (using a CT scan, 3D and CAD). For the perceived fulfillment of preoperative needs, the quality and confidence of clinical decision-making were evaluated. Results: A higher perceived ability to determine degrees and the length of tumor–vessel contact was reported in the CAD group compared to controls (p = 0.022 and p = 0.003, respectively). Lower degrees of tumor–vessel contact were predicted for radiologically borderline resectable tumors in the CAD group compared to controls (p = 0.037). Higher confidence levels were observed in predicting the need for vascular resection in the 3D group compared to controls (p = 0.033) for all cases combined. Conclusions: “CAD (including 3D) improved experts’ perceived ability to accurately assess vessel involvement and supports the development of evolving techniques that may enhance the diagnosis and treatment of pancreatic cancer”.

Background: Comparing outcomes across hospitals to learn from best performing hospitals can be valuable. However, reliably identifying best performance is challenging. This study assesses the possibility to distinguish best performing hospitals on single outcomes and consistency of performance on different outcomes. Methods: Data were derived from the Dutch ColoRectal Audit 2013–2015. Outcomes considered were textbook outcome (colon), (circumferential) resection margins, (serious) complications, mortality, and ‘failure to rescue’. To include uncertainty in rankings, random effect logistic regression models were used to calculate expected ranks (ERs), for each hospital and outcome. Rankability was calculated for each outcome, as a measure of reliability of ranking. Furthermore, correlation between ERs on different outcomes was assessed. Correlation was considered weak <0.40, moderate between 0.40 - 0.59 and strong >0.60. Results: The study included 32 143 patients; of whom 11 373 were treated in 2015 across 84 hospitals, 8181 colon and 3192 rectal cancer patients. In this one-year period ‘Postoperative complications’ had the highest rankability for colon (57%) and rectal (41%) surgery. No (group of) hospital(s) had the highest ER(s) on all outcomes. Correlation between ERs of outcomes was moderate in 2 (of 25) and strong in 4 (of 25) combinations. Rankability of colorectal mortality increased from 14% in 2015 to 35% when data over 2013–2015 were used. Conclusion: The highest reliability of identifying best performance based on an outcome was 57%. However, the balance between reliability and relevance of outcomes is vulnerable. No (group of) hospital(s) could be identified as best performer on all outcomes. Performance was not consistent on outcomes.

Objective: To determine if composite measures based on process indicators are consistent with short-term outcome indicators in surgical colorectal cancer care. Design: Longitudinal analysis of consistency between composite measures based on process indicators and outcome indicators for 85 Dutch hospitals. Setting: The Dutch Surgical Colorectal Audit database, the Netherlands. Participants: 4732 elective patients with colon carcinoma and 2239 with rectum carcinoma treated in 85 hospitals were included in the analyses. Main outcome measures: All available process indicators were aggregated into five different composite measures. The association of the different composite measures with risk-adjusted postoperative mortality and morbidity was analysed at the patient and hospital level. Results: At the patient level, only one of the composite measures was negatively associated with morbidity for rectum carcinoma. At the hospital level, a strong negative association was found between composite measures and hospital mortality and morbidity rates for rectum carcinoma (p<0.05), and hospital morbidity rates for colon carcinoma. Conclusions: For individual patients, a high score on the composite measures based on process indicators is not associated with better short-term outcome. However, at the hospital level, a good score on the composite measures based on process indicators was consistent with more favourable risk-adjusted short-term outcome rates.