Safety and cost analysis of selective histopathological examination following appendicectomy and cholecystectomy (FANCY study): protocol and statistical analysis plan of a prospective observational multicentre study

Vivian P Bastiaenen, Bartholomeus Jga Corten, Elise Aj de Savornin Lohman, Joske de Jonge, Anne C Kraima, Hilko A Swank, Jaap Lp van Vliet, Gijs Jd van Acker, Anna Aw van Geloven, Klaas H In 't Hof, Lianne Koens, Philip R de Reuver, Charles C van Rossem, Gerrit D Slooter, Pieter J Tanis, Valeska Terpstra, Marcel Gw Dijkgraaf, Willem A Bemelman, Vivian P Bastiaenen, Bartholomeus Jga Corten, Elise Aj de Savornin Lohman, Joske de Jonge, Anne C Kraima, Hilko A Swank, Jaap Lp van Vliet, Gijs Jd van Acker, Anna Aw van Geloven, Klaas H In 't Hof, Lianne Koens, Philip R de Reuver, Charles C van Rossem, Gerrit D Slooter, Pieter J Tanis, Valeska Terpstra, Marcel Gw Dijkgraaf, Willem A Bemelman

Abstract

Introduction: Routine histopathological examination following appendicectomy and cholecystectomy has significant financial implications and comprises a substantial portion of the pathologists' workload, while the incidence of unexpected pathology is low. The aim of the selective histopathological examination Following AppeNdicectomy and CholecystectomY (FANCY) study is to investigate the oncological safety and potential cost savings of selective histopathological examination based on macroscopic assessment performed by the surgeon.

Methods and analysis: This is a Dutch multicentre prospective observational study, in which removed appendices and gallbladders will be systematically assessed by the operating surgeon for macroscopic abnormalities suspicious for malignant neoplasms. After visual inspection and digital palpation of the removed specimen, the operating surgeon will report whether macroscopic abnormalities suspicious for a malignant neoplasm are present, and if he or she believes additional microscopic examination by the pathologist is indicated. Regardless of the surgeon's assessment, all specimens will be sent for histopathological examination. In this way, routine histopathological examination can be compared with a hypothetical situation in which specimens are routinely examined by surgeons and only sent to the pathologist on indication. The two main outcomes are oncological safety and potential cost savings of a selective policy. Oncological safety of selective histopathological examination will be assessed by calculating the number of patients in whom a histopathological diagnosis of an appendiceal neoplasm or gallbladder cancer with clinical consequences benefitting the patient would have been missed. A cost analysis will be performed to quantify the potential cost savings.

Ethics and dissemination: The study protocol was reviewed by the Institutional Review Board of the Amsterdam UMC, location AMC, which decided that the Dutch Medical Research Involving Human Subjects Act is not applicable. In all participating centres, approval for execution of the FANCY study has been obtained from the local Institutional Review Board before the start of inclusion of patients. The study results will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publications and conference presentations. Guidelines will be revised according to the findings of the study.

Trial registration number: NCT03510923.

Keywords: health economics; histopathology; surgery.

Conflict of interest statement

Competing interests: None declared.

© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2019. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Number of patients with an appendiceal neoplasm with clinical consequences benefitting the patient that would have been diagnosed (green box) and missed (red box) in case of a selective policy. The gray dotted line indicates the total number of patients benefitting from clinical consequences of an appendiceal neoplasm, that would have been diagnosed in case of a routine policy.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Number of patients with gallbladder cancer with clinical consequences benefitting the patient that would have been diagnosed (green box) and missed (red box) in case of a selective policy. The gray dotted line indicates the total number of patients benefitting from clinical consequences of gallbladder cancer, that would have been diagnosed in case of a routine policy.

References

    1. Swank HA, Eshuis EJ, Ubbink DT, et al. . Is routine histopathological examination of appendectomy specimens useful? A systematic review of the literature. Colorectal Dis 2011;13:1214–21. 10.1111/j.1463-1318.2010.02457.x
    1. Swank HA, Mulder IM, Hop WC, et al. . Routine histopathology for carcinoma in cholecystectomy specimens not evidence based: a systematic review. Surg Endosc 2013;27:4439–48. 10.1007/s00464-013-3084-3
    1. Khan RA, Ghani I, Chana RS. Routine histopathological examination of appendectomy specimens in children: is there any rationale? Pediatr Surg Int 2011;27:1313–5. 10.1007/s00383-011-2926-0
    1. Jahan B, Najeeb S, Shaikh AW. Acute appendicitis correlating histopathological findings with clinical - is histopathology needed for all? PJMHS 2016;10:118–21.
    1. van Vliet JLP, van Gulik TM, Verbeek PCM. Is it necessary to send gallbladder specimens for routine histopathological examination after cholecystectomy the use of macroscopic examination. Dig Surg 2013;30:472–5. 10.1159/000357259
    1. Emmett CD, Barrett P, Gilliam AD, et al. . Routine versus selective histological examination after cholecystectomy to exclude incidental gallbladder carcinoma. Annals 2015;97:526–9. 10.1308/rcsann.2015.0013
    1. Olthof PB, Metman MJH, de Krijger RR, et al. . Routine pathology and postoperative follow-up are not cost-effective in cholecystectomy for benign gallbladder disease. World J Surg 2018;42:3165–70. 10.1007/s00268-018-4619-5
    1. Deng Y-lei, Xiong X-ze, Zhou Y, et al. . Selective histology of cholecystectomy specimens--is it justified? J Surg Res 2015;193:196–201. 10.1016/j.jss.2014.07.039
    1. Pape U-F, Niederle B, Costa F, et al. . ENETS consensus guidelines for neuroendocrine neoplasms of the appendix (excluding goblet cell carcinomas). Neuroendocrinology 2016;103:144–52. 10.1159/000443165
    1. Aloia TA, Járufe N, Javle M, et al. . Gallbladder cancer: expert consensus statement. HPB 2015;17:681–90. 10.1111/hpb.12444
    1. Romero-González RJ, Garza-Flores A, Martínez-PérezMaldonado L, et al. . Gallbladder selection for histopathological analysis based on a simple method: a prospective comparative study. Annals 2012;94:159–64. 10.1308/003588412X13171221589810
    1. Tayeb M, Rauf F, Ahmad K, et al. . Is it necessary to submit grossly normal looking gall bladder specimens for histopathological examination? Asian Pacific Journal of Cancer Prevention 2015;16:1535–8. 10.7314/APJCP.2015.16.4.1535
    1. Corten BJGA, Alexander S, van Zwam PH, et al. . Outcome of surgical inspection of the gallbladder in relation to final pathology. J Gastrointest Surg 2019;23:1130–4. 10.1007/s11605-018-3921-8
    1. NVVH. Evidence-based richtlijn Nederlandse Vereniging voor Heelkunde, acute appendicitis, 2019.
    1. NVVH. Evidence-based richtlijn Nederlandse Vereniging voor Heelkunde, Galsteenlijden, 2016.
    1. Corten BJGA, Leclercq WKG, Dejong CH, et al. . Selective histological examination after cholecystectomy: an analysis of current daily practice in the Netherlands. World J Surg 2019;43:2561–70. 10.1007/s00268-019-05077-w
    1. van Rossem CC, Bolmers MDM, Schreinemacher MHF, et al. . Prospective nationwide outcome audit of surgery for suspected acute appendicitis. Br J Surg 2016;103:144–51. 10.1002/bjs.9964
    1. Borstlap WAA, Westerduin E, Aukema TS, et al. . Anastomotic leakage and chronic presacral sinus formation after low anterior resection: results from a large cross-sectional study. Ann Surg 2017;266:870–7. 10.1097/SLA.0000000000002429
    1. Amelung FJ, Borstlap WAA, Consten ECJ, et al. . Propensity score‐matched analysis of oncological outcome between stent as bridge to surgery and emergency resection in patients with malignant left‐sided colonic obstruction. BJS 2019;106:1075–86. 10.1002/bjs.11172
    1. Gardenbroek TJ, Pinkney TD, Sahami S, et al. . The ACCURE-trial: the effect of appendectomy on the clinical course of ulcerative colitis, a randomised international multicenter trial (NTR2883) and the ACCURE-UK trial: a randomised external pilot trial (ISRCTN56523019). BMC Surg 2015;15:30 10.1186/s12893-015-0017-1
    1. Amin MB, Edge S, Greene F, et al. . Ajcc cancer staging manual. 8th edition, 2017.
    1. Søreide K, Guest RV, Harrison EM, et al. . Systematic review of management of incidental gallbladder cancer after cholecystectomy. Br J Surg 2019;106:32–45. 10.1002/bjs.11035
    1. Wiersma T, de Wit N, Drenthen T. NHG-Standpunt Bevolkingsonderzoek darmkanker 2013.
    1. Castor EDC. Castor Electronic Data Capture, 2019. Available:
    1. Casparie M, Tiebosch AT, Burger G, et al. . Pathology databanking and biobanking in the Netherlands, a central role for PALGA, the nationwide histopathology and cytopathology data network and archive. Cell Oncol 2007;29:19–24.
    1. Zorginstituut N. Richtlijn voor Het uitvoeren van economische evaluaties in de gezondheidszorg. Diemen 2015.

Source: PubMed

3
Se inscrever