Objective: To determine the yield of preoperative screening for COVID-19 with chest CT and RT-PCR in patients without COVID-19 symptoms. Summary of Background Data: Many centers are currently screening surgical patients for COVID-19 using either chest CT, RT-PCR or both, due to the risk for worsened surgical outcomes and nosocomial spread. The optimal design and yield of such a strategy are currently unknown. Methods: This multicenter study included consecutive adult patients without COVID-19 symptoms who underwent preoperative screening using chest CT and RT-PCR before elective or emergency surgery under general anesthesia. Results: A total of 2093 patients without COVID-19 symptoms were included in 14 participating centers; 1224 were screened by CT and RT-PCR and 869 by chest CT only. The positive yield of screening using a combination of chest CT and RT-PCR was 1.5% [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.8–2.1]. Individual yields were 0.7% (95% CI: 0.2–1.1) for chest CT and 1.1% (95% CI: 0.6–1.7) for RT-PCR; the incremental yield of chest CT was 0.4%. In relation to COVID-19 community prevalence, up to ∼6% positive RT-PCR was found for a daily hospital admission rate >1.5 per 100,000 inhabitants, and around 1.0% for lower prevalence. Conclusions: One in every 100 patients without COVID-19 symptoms tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 with RT-PCR; this yield increased in conjunction with community prevalence. The added value of chest CT was limited. Preoperative screening allowed us to take adequate precautions for SARS-CoV-2 positive patients in a surgical population, whereas negative patients needed only routine procedures.

BackgroundIn case of suspicious lymph nodes on computed tomography (CT) or fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography (FDG-PET), advanced tumour size or central tumour location in patients with suspected non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), Dutch and European guidelines recommend mediastinal staging by endosonography (endobronchial ultrasound (EBUS) and endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)) with sampling of mediastinal lymph nodes. If biopsy results from endosonography turn out negative, additional surgical staging of the mediastinum by mediastinoscopy is advised to prevent unnecessary lung resection due to false negative endosonography findings. We hypothesize that omitting mediastinoscopy after negative endosonography in mediastinal staging of NSCLC does not result in an unacceptable percentage of unforeseen N2 disease at surgical resection. In addition, omitting mediastinoscopy comprises no extra waiting time until definite surgery, omits one extra general anaesthesia and hospital admission, and may be associated with lower morbidity and comparable survival. Therefore, this strategy may reduce health care costs and increase quality of life. The aim of this study is to compare the cost-effectiveness and cost-utility of mediastinal staging strategies including and excluding mediastinoscopy.Methods/designThis study is a multicenter parallel randomized non-inferiority trial comparing two diagnostic strategies (with or without mediastinoscopy) for mediastinal staging in 360 patients with suspected resectable NSCLC. Patients are eligible for inclusion when they underwent systematic endosonography to evaluate mediastinal lymph nodes including tissue sampling with negative endosonography results. Patients will not be eligible for inclusion when PET/CT demonstrates ‘bulky N2-N3’ disease or the combination of a highly suspicious as well as irresectable mediastinal lymph node. Primary outcome measure for non-inferiority is the proportion of patients with unforeseen N2 disease at surgery. Secondary outcome measures are hospitalization, morbidity, overall 2-year survival, quality of life, cost-effectiveness and cost-utility. Patients will be followed up 2 years after start of treatment.DiscussionResults of the MEDIASTrial will have immediate impact on national and international guidelines, which are accessible to public, possibly reducing mediastinoscopy as a commonly performed invasive procedure for NSCLC staging and diminishing variation in clinical practice.Trial registrationThe trial is registered at the Netherlands Trial Register on July 6th, 2017 (NTR 6528).Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1186/s12893-018-0359-6) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

The between-hospital variation in case mix of patients undergoing surgical treatment for non-small cell lung cancer emphasizes the importance of proper adjustment when comparing hospitals on outcome indicators.

Background: Quality registries play an important role in the professional quality system for cancer treatment in The Netherlands. This article provides insight into the Dutch Lung Cancer Audit (DLCA); its core principles, initiation and development, first results and what lessons can be learned from the Dutch experience. Methods: Cornerstones of the DLCA are discussed in detail, including: audit aims; the leading role for clinicians; web-based registration and feedback; data handling; multidisciplinary evaluation of quality indicators; close collaborations with all stakeholders in healthcare and transparency of results. Results: In 2012 the first Dutch lung cancer specific sub-registry, focusing on surgical treatment was started. Since 2016 all major treating specialisms (lung oncologists, radiation-oncologists, general-and cardiothoracic surgeons-represented in the DLCA-L,-R and-S sub-registries respectively) have joined. Over time, the number of participating hospitals and included patients has increased. In 2016, the numbers of included patients with a non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) were 3,502 (DLCA-L), 2,427 (DLCA-R) and 1,979 (DLCA-S). Between sub-registries mean age varied from 66 to 70 years, occurrence of Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance score 2+ varied from 3.3% to 20.8% and occurrence of clinical stage I-II from 27.6% to 81.3%. Of all patients receiving chemoradiotherapy 64.2% was delivered concurrently. Of the surgical procedures 71.2% was started with a minimally invasive technique, with a conversion rate of 18.7%. In 2016 there were 17 publicly available quality indicators-consisting of structure, process and outcome indicators-calculated from the DLCA. Conclusions: the DLCA is a unique registry to evaluate the quality of multidisciplinary lung cancer care. It is accepted and implemented on a nationwide level, enabling participating healthcare providers to get insight in their performance, and providing other stakeholders with a transparent evaluation of this performance, all aiming for continuous healthcare improvement.

Background: Data of quality registries are increasingly used by healthcare providers, patients, health insurance companies, and governments for monitoring quality of care, hospital benchmarking and outcome research. To provide all stakeholders with reliable information and outcomes, reliable data are of the utmost importance. Methods: This article describes methods for quality assurance of data-used by the Dutch Institute for Clinical Auditing (DICA)-regarding: the design of a registry, data collection, data analysis, and external data verification. For the Dutch Lung Cancer Audit for Surgery (DLCA-S) results of data analysis and data verification were assessed with descriptive statistics. Results: Of all registered patients in the DLCA-S in 2016 (n=2,391), 98.2% was analysable and completeness of data for calculations of transparent outcomes was 90.7%. Data verification for the year 2014 showed a case ascertainment of 99.4%. Of 15 selected hospitals, 14 were verified. All these hospitals received the conclusion 'sufficient quality' on case ascertainment, mortality (0% under-registration) and complicated course (3.3% wrongly registered complications). One hospital was not able to deliver patients lists, and therefore not verified. Conclusions: Quality of data can be promoted in many different ways. A completeness indicator and data verification are useful tools to improve data quality. Both methods were used to demonstrate the reliability of registered data in the DLCA-S. Opportunities for further improvement are standardised reporting and adequate data extraction.