Cancer Rehabilitation Indicators for Europe

Little is known of cancer rehabilitation needs in Europe. EUROCHIP-3 organised a group of experts to propose a list of population-based indicators used for describing cancer rehabilitation across Europe. The aim of this study is to present and discuss these indicators. A EUROCHIP-3 expert panel reached agreement on two types of indicators. (a) Cancer prevalence indicators. These were proposed as a means of characterising the burden of cancer rehabilitation needs by time from diagnosis and patient health status. These indicators can be estimated from cancer registry data or by collecting data on follow-up and treatments for samples of cases archived in cancer registries. (b) Indicators of rehabilitation success. These include: return to work, quality of life, and satisfaction of specific rehabilitation needs. Studies can be performed to estimate these indicators in individual countries, but to obtain comparable data across European countries it will be necessary to administer a questionnaire to randomly selected samples of patients from population-based cancer registry databases. However, three factors complicate questionnaire studies: patients may not be aware that they have cancer; incomplete participation in surveys could lead to bias; and national confidentiality laws in some cases prohibit cancer registries from approaching patients. Although these studies are expensive and difficult to perform, but as the number of cancer survivors increases, it is important to document their needs in order to provide information on cancer control.

American Society of Anesthesiologists Score: Still Useful After 60 Years? Results of the EuSOS Study

OBJECTIVE: The European Surgical Outcomes Study described mortality following in-patient surgery. Several factors were identified that were able to predict poor outcomes in a multivariate analysis. These included age, procedure urgency, severity and type and the American Association of Anaesthesia score. This study describes in greater detail the relationship between the American Association of Anaesthesia score and postoperative mortality. METHODS: Patients in this 7-day cohort study were enrolled in April 2011. Consecutive patients aged 16 years and older undergoing inpatient non-cardiac surgery with a recorded American Association of Anaesthesia score in 498 hospitals across 28 European nations were included and followed up for a maximum of 60 days. The primary endpoint was in-hospital mortality. Decision tree analysis with the CHAID (SPSS) system was used to delineate nodes associated with mortality. RESULTS: The study enrolled 46,539 patients. Due to missing values, 873 patients were excluded, resulting in the analysis of 45,666 patients. Increasing American Association of Anaesthesia scores were associated with increased admission rates to intensive care and higher mortality rates. Despite a progressive relationship with mortality, discrimination was poor, with an area under the ROC curve of 0.658 (95% CI 0.642 - 0.6775). Using regression trees (CHAID), we identified four discrete American Association of Anaesthesia nodes associated with mortality, with American Association of Anaesthesia 1 and American Association of Anaesthesia 2 compressed into the same node. CONCLUSION: The American Association of Anaesthesia score can be used to determine higher risk groups of surgical patients, but clinicians cannot use the score to discriminate between grades 1 and 2. Overall, the discriminatory power of the model was less than acceptable for widespread use.