Hallet, Julie

Abstract Background Poor operating room (OR) ergonomics poses risk of injury to OR staff, worsening patient outcomes and threatening workforce wellness and sustainability. How OR staff navigate ergonomic barriers in the interdisciplinary team environment was examined in this qualitative study. Methods Semi-structured, open-ended interviews of surgeons, anaesthesiologists, and OR nurses were conducted at a single institution using a sociomaterial approach with interview-to-the-double. Transcripts were coded by two independent researchers. Themes in the data were outlined using the System Engineering Initiative for Patient Safety (SEIPS) 2.0 framework. Results Five major themes were identified. First, physical environment issues creating cognitive and physical frictions, such as tripping hazards and poor room layouts. Second, influence of social positionality, with hierarchy by role and experience and social dynamics leading to a differential capacity to adjust. Third, team collaboration, with lack of interdisciplinary work and communication and high staff turnover. Fourth, burden of self-initiated workarounds, outlining conflicts between system/organizational issues and individual solutions. Fifth, institutional support, with lack of leadership engagement. Participants suggested solutions including accommodations to foster a collaborative approach to managing discomfort in the OR and new team communication tools. Conclusion Ergonomic barriers were described within the work system of the SEIPS 2.0 framework. Social positionality and differential levels of agency, as well as lack of team collaboration and misperceptions of others’ roles, were central to ergonomic challenges. Conflicts between problems lying with the system/organization and solutions being left to individuals were also central to challenges to optimal OR ergonomics.

Importance The Surgery as Needed for Oesophageal Cancer (SANO) trial introduced active surveillance as a noninferior alternative to esophagectomy for patients with esophageal cancer who achieve a clinical complete response (cCR) after neoadjuvant chemoradiation (nCRT). However, concerns remain about recurrence risk, long-term survival, and quality-of-life trade-offs with organ-preserving strategies. Objective To evaluate the long-term comparative effectiveness of active surveillance vs standard esophagectomy in patients with cCR following nCRT for locally advanced esophageal cancer, using updated data from the SANO trial. Design, Setting, and Participants This decision analytical model used Markov modeling and probabilities and utility inputs derived from the SANO trial and existing literature. The base case was a 60-year-old male with good functional status and cT3N1M0 esophageal cancer achieving cCR after nCRT. Exposures Standard routine esophagectomy vs active surveillance after neoadjuvant chemoradiation. Main Outcomes and Measures The primary outcome was quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs); the secondary outcome was life-years. Additional model scenarios explored (1) quality-of-life impacts of esophagectomy modeled as a time-varying covariate and (2) 2-year outcomes to align with the SANO trial time horizon. Sensitivity analyses evaluated recurrence probabilities and surgery-related quality-of-life trade-offs. Results At 5 years, standard surgery yielded greater QALYs (1.74 vs 1.34; incremental gain of 0.40 QALYs or ~4.8 months in perfect health) and life-years (3.11 vs 2.41; incremental gain of 0.70 life-years or ~8.4 months) compared with active surveillance. However, at a 2-year horizon, active surveillance was preferred for QALYs (incremental gain of ~15 days), consistent with the SANO trial. Sensitivity analyses revealed the model favored active surveillance when the recurrence probability was less than 43%, the likelihood of local/resectable recurrence was greater than 94%, or the negative quality-of-life impact of esophagectomy was substantial. Modeling esophagectomy’s quality-of-life impact as time limited further strengthened surgery’s long-term QALY benefit. Conclusions and Relevance This study found that while active surveillance offers short-term quality-of-life benefits and may be appropriate in select patients, particularly those at low recurrence risk or with high surgical risk, esophagectomy remains the preferred strategy for maximizing long-term survival and QALYs. These findings support a nuanced, individualized approach to post-nCRT management, balancing organ preservation with long-term oncologic outcomes.

ASCO Guidelines provide recommendations with comprehensive review and analyses of the relevant literature for each recommendation, following the guideline development process as outlined in the ASCO Guidelines Methodology Manual . ASCO Guidelines follow the ASCO Conflict of Interest Policy for Clinical Practice Guidelines . Clinical Practice Guidelines and other guidance (“Guidance”) provided by ASCO is not a comprehensive or definitive guide to treatment options. It is intended for voluntary use by clinicians and should be used in conjunction with independent professional judgment. Guidance may not be applicable to all patients, interventions, diseases or stages of diseases. Guidance is based on review and analysis of relevant literature and is not intended as a statement of the standard of care. ASCO does not endorse third-party drugs, devices, services, or therapies and assumes no responsibility for any harm arising from or related to the use of this information. See complete disclaimer in Appendix 1 and 2 (online only) for more. PURPOSE To develop a clinical practice guideline and recommendations for symptom management of patients with well-differentiated grade 1 to grade 3 metastatic gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumors. METHODS ASCO convened an Expert Panel to develop a clinical practice guideline by reviewing the literature for relevant guidelines, systematic reviews, randomized controlled trials (RCTs), and observational studies to develop recommendations for clinical practice. RESULTS The literature review identified eight guidelines, 19 systematic reviews, and three RCTs that informed the development of guideline recommendations. RECOMMENDATIONS Recommendations are included for carcinoid syndrome, carcinoid heart disease and carcinoid crisis, and functional pancreatic neuroendocrine tumor syndromes. Recommendations are provided for surgical management, liver-directed therapy, and systemic therapy options, as well as palliative care. Limited guidance is provided for sequencing of interventions. Additional information is available at www.asco.org/gastrointestinal-cancer-guidelines .

Objective: To examine perceived operating room (OR) ergonomics facilitators and barriers, with a focus on the interdisciplinary team. Background: Poor ergonomics causes musculoskeletal injuries affecting all OR staff with repercussions on patient care, outcomes, and sustainability. Lack of ergonomic awareness and education are risk factors. Methods: We conducted a self-administered web-based survey of OR nurses, surgeons, and anesthesiologists at a single center (n = 238). We developed a questionnaire through item generation and reduction, followed by reliability and validity testing. Results: Response rate was 53.8%. Respondents perceived that on average 80% of nurses, 70% of surgeons, and 40% of anesthesiologists experienced musculoskeletal (MSK) injuries, with no difference in professional groups’ perceptions. Guideline ergonomics interventions were rarely used (<25%) except for specialized clothing (33%), equipment repositioning (59%), and seating (37%), though perceived as beneficial by 80% to 90%. Reported barriers to optimal ergonomics were organizational/structural (lack of time, space, equipment, funding), whereas solutions were individual. Fear of unfavorable perceptions from others was a concern for 62%. Teams discussing, prioritizing, monitoring, or helping with ergonomics was indicated by <50%. Individual ergonomic adaptations were perceived as convenience by other staff. Conclusions: While structural/organizational issues are reported as barriers to ergonomics, solutions appear as individual responsibilities. Team dynamics did not prioritize nor support ergonomics. Education tools leveraging the interdisciplinary team are warranted. This work will be supplemented by interviews and live observations to build tailored educational tools for OR teams.

Abstract Neuroendocrine neoplasms are a diverse group of neoplasms that can occur in various areas throughout the body. Well‐differentiated neuroendocrine tumors (NETs) most often arise in the gastrointestinal tract, termed gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (GEP‐NETs). Although GEP‐NETs are still uncommon, their incidence and prevalence have been steadily increasing over the past decades. The primary treatment for GEP‐NETs is surgery, which offers the best chance for a cure. However, because GEP‐NETs are often slow‐growing and do not cause symptoms until they have spread widely, curative surgery is not always an option. Significant advances have been made in systemic and locoregional treatment options in recent years, including peptide‐receptor radionuclide therapy with α and β emitters, somatostatin analogs, chemotherapy, and targeted molecular therapies.

Objective: To determine the prevalence of clinical significance reporting in contemporary comparative effectiveness research (CER). Background: In CER, a statistically significant difference between study groups may or may not be clinically significant. Misinterpreting statistically significant results could lead to inappropriate recommendations that increase health care costs and treatment toxicity. Methods: CER studies from 2022 issues of the Annals of Surgery , Journal of the American Medical Association , Journal of Clinical Oncology , Journal of Surgical Research , and Journal of the American College of Surgeons were systematically reviewed by 2 different investigators. The primary outcome of interest was whether the authors specified what they considered to be a clinically significant difference in the “Methods.” Results: Of 307 reviewed studies, 162 were clinical trials and 145 were observational studies. Authors specified what they considered to be a clinically significant difference in 26 studies (8.5%). Clinical significance was defined using clinically validated standards in 25 studies and subjectively in 1 study. Seven studies (2.3%) recommended a change in clinical decision-making, all with primary outcomes achieving statistical significance. Five (71.4%) of these studies did not have clinical significance defined in their methods. In randomized controlled trials with statistically significant results, sample size was inversely correlated with effect size ( r = −0.30, P = 0.038). Conclusions: In contemporary CER, most authors do not specify what they consider to be a clinically significant difference in study outcome. Most studies recommending a change in clinical decision-making did so based on statistical significance alone, and clinical significance was usually defined with clinically validated standards.