The aim of the study was to assess the feasibility and potential of the Global Trigger Tool (GTT) for identifying adverse events (AEs) in different specialties in German hospitals. A total of 120 patient records were randomly selected from two surgical and one neurosurgery departments of three university hospitals in Germany for a period of 2 months per department between January and July 2017. The records were reviewed using an adaptation of the German version of the Institute for Healthcare Improvement GTT. Thirty-nine records (32.5%) contained at least one AE. A total of 53 AEs were found in these 39 records. The incidences of AEs were 18.9% and 35.9% in the two surgical departments and 45.3% in neurosurgery. This corresponded to AE rates of 25.5 to 72.1 per 1000 patient-days and from 25.0 to 60.0 per 100 admissions across the three departments. A total of 71.7% of all identified AEs resulted in temporary harm (category E), 26.4% in temporary harm, requiring prolonged hospitalization (category F), and 1.9% in permanent patient harm. We also identified practical challenges, such as the necessary adaptation of the GTT relative to the respective department. The application of the GTT is feasible and represents an effective instrument for quality measurement when adapted to the departmental specifics. The trigger detection with the GTT is a valuable addition for proactive analyses of high-risk processes. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Non Commercial-No Derivatives License 4.0 (CCBY-NC-ND), where it is permissible to download and share the work provided it is properly cited. The work cannot be changed in any way or used commercially without permission from the journal.

Background: Coronavirus disease 19 (COVID-19) substantially affects cancer patients due to adverse outcomes and disruptions in cancer care. Recent studies have indicated the additional stress and anxiety burden arising from the pandemic and impairing quality of life in this vulnerable group of patients. However, patients with cancer represent a heterogenous group. Therefore, we conducted a study on patients with pancreatic cancer, requiring demanding surgical interventions and chemotherapy regimens due to its aggressive tumor biology, to explore the pandemic’s impact on quality of life within this homogenous cohort. Methods: In a descriptive observational study, the quality of life of patients who had undergone pancreatic surgery for tumor resection at our institution between 2014 and the beginning of the pandemic in March 2020 was assessed. For HRQoL measurement, we used the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Core Questionnaire (EORTC QLQ-C30), comparing their situation before the pandemic and since its beginning. An additional self-developed questionnaire was applied to assess the life circumstances during the pandemic. Results: Our cohort included 26 patients. Scores from the survey in HRQoL revealed no significant changes over time between before and during the pandemic. A medium deterioration in HRQoL was apparent in social functioning, as well as a small deterioration in role functioning and emotional functioning. Worries concerning a potential impact of COVID-19 on personal health were expressed. Psychological limitations in QoL were mainly attributed to the pandemic, whereas physical limitations in QoL were rather associated with the underlying disease of pancreatic cancer. Conclusion: The COVID-19 pandemic is causing considerable social and emotional distress among pancreatic cancer patients. These patients will benefit from psychological support during the pandemic and beyond. Long-time survivors of pancreatic cancer, such as those included in our cohort, appear to have improved resilience facing the psychosocial challenges of the pandemic. For pancreatic cancer, surgical care is considered the cornerstone of treatment. Prolonged delays in healthcare cause serious damage to mental and physical health. To date, the longer-term clinical consequences are not known and can only be estimated. The potential tragic outcome for the vulnerable group of pancreatic cancer patients highlights the urgency of timely healthcare decisions to be addressed in the future.

Sarcomas represent a heterogeneous group of mesenchymal malignancies that most commonly occur in the extremities, retroperitoneum, and head and neck. Intra-abdominal manifestations are rare and prove particularly difficult to treat when peritoneal sarcomatosis is present. Because of the overall poor prognosis of the disease, a tailored approach to surgical management is essential to achieve satisfactory outcomes with limited morbidity. We present the perioperative and long-term outcomes of 19 cases of sarcoma with peritoneal sarcomatosis treated surgically at our hospital. Treatment pathways were reviewed and clinical follow-up was performed. Patient characteristics, medical history, tumor subtype, surgical approach, hospital stay, complications, follow-up, and overall survival (OS) were assessed. Our patients were 9 women and 10 men with a median age of 45.9 years (18–88) and a median survival of 30 months (0–200). In most cases, peritoneal sarcomatosis was either discovered during surgery or the procedure was performed with palliative intent from the beginning. The surgical approach in these cases is very heterogeneous and should consider a variety of factors to tailor an approach for each patient. Sharing our experiences will help to increase knowledge about this rare disease and provide insight into the management of future cases.

Background: Video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (VATS) with bullectomy and partial pleurectomy (VBPP) is an increasingly used and well-established surgical treatment for primary spontaneous pneumothorax (PSP). However, reports on its effectiveness and long-term outcomes are limited. The aim of this study was to assess and compare long-term recurrence rates following VBPP and chest tube (CT) treatment and to identify potential risk factors for disease recurrence in patients with PSP. Methods: A total of 116 patients treated either by VBPP or CT were included in this study. Long-term recurrence rates and associations between clinical parameters and recurrence of pneumothorax were analyzed. Results: Sixty-two patients (53.4%) underwent VBPP, whereas 54 (46.6%) patients underwent CT treatment only. During a median follow-up period of 76.5 months, VBPP patients experienced a significantly lower recurrence rate compared to CT patients (6/62 vs. 35/54; p < 0.0001). CT treatment (VBPP vs. CT; p < 0.001) and a large initial pneumothorax size (Collins < 4 vs. Collins ≥ 4; p = 0.018) were independent risk factors for pneumothorax recurrence. Conclusion: VBPP is an effective and safe surgical treatment for PSP. Therefore, patients with a large pneumothorax size might benefit from VBPP, as they are at high risk for disease recurrence.

Background: The standard treatment of high-risk soft-tissue sarcoma consists of surgical resection followed by risk-adapted radiation therapy. Further treatment options that may improve local and systemic tumor control, including chemotherapy, are not well established. Due to the heterogeneity of the disease, different systemic approaches as well as their application at different time points have been attempted. Methods: We conducted a systematic literature search for randomized clinical trials in the treatment of localized, resectable high-risk adult soft-tissue sarcoma comparing different treatment modalities according to the PRISMA guidelines. We extracted published hazard ratios and number of events for the endpoints overall and disease-free survival (OS; DFS) as well as local and distant recurrence-free interval (LRFI; DRFI). The different modalities were compared in a network meta-analysis against the defined standard treatment surgery ± radiotherapy using the inverse-variance heterogeneity model. Results: The literature search identified 25 trials including 3453 patients. Five different treatment modalities were compared in the network meta-analysis. The addition of adjuvant chemotherapy significantly improved OS compared to surgery ± radiotherapy alone (HR = 0.86; CI-95%: 0.75–0.97; p = 0.017). Likewise, neoadjuvant chemotherapy combined with regional hyperthermia (naCTx + HTx) also led to superior OS (HR = 0.45; CI-95%: 0.20–1.00; p = 0.049). Both neoadjuvant chemotherapy alone (naCTx) and perioperative chemotherapy (periCTx) did not improve OS (HR = 0.61; CI-95%: 0.29–1.29; p = 0.195 and HR = 0.66; CI-95%: 0.30–1.48; p = 0.317, respectively). Histology-tailored chemotherapy (htCTx) also did not improve survival compared to surgery ± radiotherapy (HR = 1.08; CI-95%: 0.45–2.61; p = 0.868). The network analysis of DFS, LRFI, and DRFI revealed a similar pattern between the different treatment regimens. Adjuvant chemotherapy significantly improved DFS, LRFI, and DRFI compared to surgery ± radiotherapy. In direct comparison, this advantage of adjuvant chemotherapy was restricted to male patients (HR = 0.78; CI-95%: 0.65–0.92; p = 0.004) with no effect for female patients (HR = 1.08; CI-95%: 0.90–1.29; p = 0.410). Conclusions: Standardized chemotherapy in high-risk soft-tissue sarcoma appears to be of added value irrespective of timing. The benefit of adjuvant chemotherapy seems to be restricted to male patients. The addition of regional hyperthermia to neodjuvant chemotherapy achieved the best effect sizes and might warrant further investigation.