C J van de Velde

Leiden University Medical Centre, Leyden, South Holland, Netherlands

Are you C J van de Velde?

Claim your profile

Publications (278)1416.26 Total impact

  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background The 1-year mortality after colorectal cancer surgery is high and explains age related differences in colorectal cancer survival. To gain better insight in its etiology, cause of death for these patients was studied. Methods All 1924 patients who had a resection for stage I-III colorectal cancer from 2006 to 2008 in the Western region of the Netherlands were identified. Data were merged with cause of death data from the Central Bureau of Statistics Netherlands. To calculate excess mortality as compared to the general population, national data were used. Results Overall 13.2% of patients died within the first postoperative year. One-year mortality increased with age. It was as high as 43% in elderly patients that underwent emergency surgery. In 75% of patients, death was attributed to the colorectal cancer. In 25% of all patients, registered deaths were attributed to postoperative complications. Elderly patients with comorbidity more frequently died due to complications (p<0.01). Death of other causes was similar to background mortality according to age group. Conclusion In the presently studied cohort of patients that died within one year of surgery, cause of death was predominantly attributed to colorectal cancer. However, because it is not to be expected that in this cohort the number of deaths from recurrences is very high, the excess 1-year mortality indicates a prolonged impact of the surgery,especially in elderly patients. Therefore, in these patients we should focus on limiting the physiological impact of the surgery and be more involved in the post-hospital period.
    European Journal of Surgical Oncology 11/2014; · 2.89 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Although the incidence of gastric cancer has fallen steadily in developed countries over the past 50 years, outcomes in Western countries remain poor, primarily due to the advanced stage of the disease at presentation. While earlier diagnosis would help to improve outcomes for patients with gastric cancer, better understanding of the biology of the disease is also needed, along with advances in therapy. Indeed, progress in the treatment of gastric cancer has been limited, mainly because of its genetic complexity and heterogeneity. As a result, there is an urgent need to apply precision medicine to the management of the disease in order to ensure that individuals receive the most appropriate treatment. This article suggests a number of strategies that may help to accelerate progress in treating patients with gastric cancer. Incorporation of some of these approaches could help to improve the quality of life and survival for patients diagnosed with the disease. Standardisation of care across Europe through expansion of the European Registration of Cancer Care (EURECCA) registry – a European cancer audit that aims to improve quality and decrease variation in care across the region – may also be expected to lead to improved outcomes for those suffering from this common malignancy.
    Cancer Treatment Reviews 07/2014; · 6.02 Impact Factor
  • Cancer Research 03/2014; 73(24 Supplement):P1-08-19-P1-08-19. · 9.28 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Numerous changes in epigenetic mechanisms have been described in various types of tumors. In search for new biomarkers, we investigated the expression of Polycomb-group (PcG) proteins EZH2, BMI1 and SUZ12 and associated histone modification H3K27me3 in colorectal cancer. Nuclear expression of PcG proteins and histone modification H3K27me3 were immunohistochemically (IHC) stained on a tissue microarray (TMA), including 247 tumor tissues and 47 normal tissues, and scored using the semi-automated Ariol system. Tumor tissues showed higher expression of EZH2 (p = 0.05) and H3K27me3 (p<0.001) as compared to their normal counterparts. Combined marker trend analyses indicated that an increase in the number of markers showing high expression was associated with better prognosis. High expression of all four markers in the combined marker analyses was correlated with the best patient survival and the longest recurrence-free survival, with overall survival (p = 0.01, HR 0.42(0.21-0.84)), disease-free survival (p = 0.007, HR 0.23(0.08-0.67) and local recurrence-free survival (p = 0.02, HR 0.30(0.11-0.84)). In conclusion, we found that expression of PcG proteins and H3K27me3 showed prognostic value in our study cohort. Better stratification of patients was obtained by combining the expression data of the investigated biomarkers as compared to the individual markers, underlining the importance of investigating multiple markers simultaneously
    PLoS.One. 01/2014; 9(9):e108265-.
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: This study was designed to define a statistically sound and clinically meaningful cutoff point for annual hospital volume for esophagectomy. Higher hospital volumes are associated with improved outcomes after esophagectomy. However, reported optimal volumes in literature vary, and minimal volume standards in different countries show considerable variation. So far, there has been no research on the noncategorical, nonlinear, volume-outcome relationship in esophagectomy. METHODS: Data were derived from the Netherlands Cancer Registry. Restricted cubic splines were used to investigate the nonlinear effects of annual hospital volume on 6 month and 2 year mortality rates. Outcomes were adjusted for year of diagnosis, case-mix, and (neo)adjuvant treatment. RESULTS: Between 1989 and 2009, 10,025 patients underwent esophagectomy for cancer in the Netherlands. Annual hospital volumes varied between 1 and 83 year, increasing over time. Increasing annual hospital volume showed a continuous, nonlinear decrease in hazard ratio (HR) for mortality along the curve. Increasing hospital volume from 20 year (baseline, HR = 1.00) to 40 and 60 year was associated with decreasing 6 month mortality, with a HR of 0.73 (95 % confidence interval (0.65-0.83) and 0.67 (0.58-0.77) respectively. Beyond 60 year, no further decrease was detected. Higher hospital volume also was associated with decreasing 2 year mortality until 50 esophagectomies year with a HR of 0.86 (0.79-0.93). CONCLUSIONS: Centralization of esophagectomy to a minimum of 20 resections/year has been effectively introduced in the Netherlands. Increasing annual hospital volume was associated with a nonlinear decrease in mortality up to 40-60 esophagectomies/year, after which a plateau was reached. This finding may guide quality improvement efforts worldwide.
    Ann Surg Oncol. 01/2014;
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: IMPORTANCE There is growing interest in reducing the variations and deficiencies in the multidisciplinary management of gastric cancer. OBJECTIVE To define optimal treatment strategies for gastric adenocarcinoma (GC). DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method involving a multidisciplinary expert panel of 16 physicians from 6 countries. INTERVENTIONS Gastrectomy, perioperative chemotherapy, adjuvant chemoradiation, surveillance endoscopy, and best supportive care. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES Panelists scored 416 scenarios regarding treatment scenarios for appropriateness from 1 (highly inappropriate) to 9 (highly appropriate). Median appropriateness scores from 1 to 3 were considered inappropriate; 4 to 6, uncertain; and 7 to 9, appropriate. Agreement was reached when 12 of 16 panelists scored the scenario similarly. Appropriate scenarios agreed on were subsequently scored for necessity. RESULTS For patients with T1N0 disease, surgery alone was considered appropriate, while there was no agreement over surgery alone for patients T2N0 disease. Perioperative chemotherapy was appropriate for patients who had T1-2N2-3 or T3-4 GC without major symptoms. Adjuvant chemoradiotherapy was classified as appropriate for T1-2N1-3 or T3-4 proximal GC and necessary for T1-2N2-3 or T3-4 distal GC. There was no agreement regarding surveillance imaging and endoscopy following gastrectomy. Surveillance endoscopy was deemed to be appropriate after endoscopic resection. For patients with metastatic GC, surgical resection was considered inappropriate for those with no major symptoms, unless the disease was limited to positive cytology alone, in which case there was disagreement. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE Patients with GC being treated with curative intent should be considered for multimodal treatment. For patients with incurable disease, surgical interventions should be considered only for the management of major bleeding or obstruction.
    JAMA surgery. 11/2013;
  • Journal of Geriatric Oncology 10/2013; 4:S26. · 1.15 Impact Factor
  • Journal of Geriatric Oncology 10/2013; 4:S93-S94. · 1.15 Impact Factor
  • Source
    EJC Supplements 09/2013; 11(2):60–71. · 2.71 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The prognosis of patients with gastroesophageal adenocarcinoma is poor. There is conflicting evidence regarding effects of preoperative chemotherapy on survival and other outcomes. We conducted a meta-analysis with aggregate and individual patient data (IPD) to assess the effect of preoperative chemotherapy for gastroesophageal adenocarcinoma on survival and other outcomes. Two independent reviewers identified eligible randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing chemotherapy+/-radiotherapy followed by surgery with surgery alone for gastroesophageal adenocarcinoma. IPD was solicited from all trials. Meta-analyses were performed using the two stage method. We identified 14 RCTs (2422 patients). For eight RCTs (1049 patients; 43.3%) we obtained IPD. Preoperative chemotherapy was associated with longer overall survival (hazard ratio [HR] 0.81; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.73-0.89; p<0.0001). There were larger treatment effects in tumours of the gastroesophageal junction and for chemoradiotherapy compared to chemotherapy, but the tests for subgroup differences were not statistically significant. Preoperative chemotherapy was associated with longer disease-free survival, higher likelihood of R0 resection and more favourable post-treatment tumour stage, but not perioperative complications. Preoperative chemotherapy for locoregional gastroesophageal adenocarcinoma increases survival compared to surgery alone. It should be offered to all eligible patients. There appear to be larger survival advantages in tumours of the gastroesophageal junction and for chemoradiotherapy, but these findings require prospective confirmation.
    European journal of cancer (Oxford, England: 1990) 06/2013; · 4.12 Impact Factor
  • Journal of the American College of Surgeons 05/2013; · 4.45 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background To evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of preoperative short-course radiotherapy followed by capecitabine and oxaliplatin treatment in combination with bevacizumab and subsequent radical surgical treatment of all tumor sites in patients with stage IV rectal cancer.Patients and methodsAdults with primary metastasized rectal cancer were enrolled. They received radiotherapy (5 × 5 Gy) followed by bevacizumab (7.5 mg/kg, day 1) and oxaliplatin (130 mg/m(2), day 1) intravenously and capecitabine (1000 mg/m(2) twice daily orally, days 1-14) for up to six cycles. Surgery was carried out 6-8 weeks after the last bevacizumab dose. The percentage of radical surgical treatment, 2-year survival and recurrence rates, and treatment-related toxicity was evaluated.ResultsOf 50 included patients, 42 (84%) had liver metastases, 5 (10%) lung metastases, and 3 (6%) both liver and lung metastases. Radical surgical treatment was possible in 36 (72%) patients. The 2-year overall survival rate was 80% [95% confidence interval (CI) 66.3%-90.0%]. The 2-year recurrence rate was 64% (95% CI 49.8%-84.5%). Toxic effects were tolerable. No treatment-related deaths occurred.Conclusions Radical surgical treatment of all tumor sites carried out after short-course radiotherapy, and bevacizumab-capecitabine-oxaliplatin combination therapy is a feasible and potentially curative approach in primary metastasized rectal cancer.
    Annals of Oncology 03/2013; · 6.58 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: OBJECTIVE:: Defining processes of care, which are appropriate and necessary for management of gastric cancer (GC), is an important step toward improving outcomes. METHODS:: Using a RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method, an international multidisciplinary expert panel created 22 statements reflecting optimal management. All statements were scored for appropriateness and necessity. RESULTS:: The following tenets were scored appropriate and necessary: (1) preoperative staging by computed tomography of abdomen/pelvis; (2) positron-emission tomographic scans not routinely indicated; (3) consideration for adjuvant therapy; (4) further clinical trials; (5) multidisciplinary decision making; (6) sufficient support at hospitals; (7) assessment of 16 or more lymph nodes (LNs); (8) in metastatic disease, surgery only for palliation of major symptoms; (9) surgeons experienced in GC management; (10) and surgeons experienced in both GC management and advanced laparoscopic surgery for laparoscopic resection. The following were scored appropriate, but of indeterminate necessity: (1) diagnostic laparoscopy before treatment; (2) a multidisciplinary approach to linitis plastica; (3) genetic assessment for diffuse GC and family history, or age less than 45 years; (4) endoscopic removal of select T1aN0 lesions; (5) D2 LN dissection in curative intent cases; (6) D1 LN dissection for early GC or patients with comorbidities; (7) frozen section analysis of margins; (8) nonemergent cases performed in a hospital with a volume of more than 15 resections per year; and (9) by a surgeon with more than 6 resection per year. CONCLUSIONS:: The expert panel has created 22 statements for the perioperative management of GC patients, to provide guidance to clinicians and improve the care received by patients.
    Annals of surgery 03/2013; · 7.19 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: CONSENSUS CONFERENCE AND DIAGNOSTIC WORK UP FOR COLON AND RECTAL CANCER In December 2012 the first consensus conference on colon and rectal cancer multidisciplinary management was held in Perugia, Italy (1;1). An international expert panel, with representatives of all major European societies and registries relevant to colorectal cancer care, was invited to the Delphi consensus process. Several rounds of voting were organised before, during and one after the meeting, on almost 500 statements of medical decisions in colon and rectal cancer care. Eighty four % of the decisions achieved large consensus (1). The present experts’ review of radiology is a concise summary with expert’s opinions and evidence based background to the consensus statements and its results. Colon cancer and rectal cancer are described separately in comparable sequence to the text of the consensus document (1).
    European journal of surgical oncology: the journal of the European Society of Surgical Oncology and the British Association of Surgical Oncology 01/2013; · 2.56 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background Cancer care is undergoing an important paradigm shift from a disease-focused management to a patient-centred approach, in which increasingly more attention is paid to psychosocial aspects, quality of life, patients’ rights and empowerment and survivorship. In this context, multidisciplinary teams emerge as a practical necessity for optimal coordination among health professionals and clear communication with patients. The European Partnership for Action Against Cancer (EPAAC), an initiative launched by the European Commission in 2009, addressed the multidisciplinary care from a policy perspective in order to define the core elements that all tumour-based multidisciplinary teams (MDTs) should include. To that effect, a working group conference was held in January 2013 within the EPAAC Work Package 7 (on Healthcare) framework. Methods The consensus group consisted of high-level representatives from the following European scientific societies, patient associations and stakeholders: European CanCer Organisation (ECCO), European SocieTy for Radiology & Oncology (ESTRO), European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO), European Society of Surgical Oncology (ESSO), International Society of Geriatric Oncology (SIOG), European Association for Palliative Care (EAPC), European Oncology Nursing Society (EONS), International Psycho-Oncology Society (IPOS),European Cancer Patient Coalition (ECPC), EuropaColon, Europa Donna - The European Breast Cancer Coalition, Association of European Cancer Leagues (ECL), Organisation of European Cancer Institutes (OECI), EUSOMA - European Society of Breast Cancer Specialists, European Hospital and Healthcare Federation (HOPE) and EPAAC Work Packages 5 (Health promotion and prevention), 7, 8 (Research), 9 (Information systems) and 10 (Cancer plans). A background document with a list of 26 core issues drawn from a systematic review of the literature was used to guide the discussion. Five areas related to MDTs were covered: care objectives, organisation, clinical assessment, patients’ rights and empowerment and policy support. Preliminary drafts of the document were widely circulated for consultation and amendments by the working group before final approval. Results The working group unanimously formulated a Policy Statement on Multidisciplinary Cancer Care to define the core elements that should be implemented by all tumour-based MDTs. This document identifies MDTs as the core component in cancer care organisation and sets down the key elements to guide changes across all European health systems. Conclusion MDTs are an essential instrument of effective cancer care policy, and their continued development crucial to providing patients the care they need and deserve. While implementation must remain in local hands, European health systems can still benefit from having a basis for an effective multidisciplinary model of cooperation. This policy statement is intended to serve as a reference for policymakers and healthcare providers who wish to improve the services currently provided to the cancer patients whose lives and well-being depend on their action.
    European journal of cancer (Oxford, England: 1990) 01/2013; · 4.12 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the most common tumour type in both sexes combined in Western countries. Although screening programmes including the implementation of faecal occult blood test and colonoscopy might be able to reduce mortality by removing precursor lesions and by making diagnosis at an earlier stage, the burden of disease and mortality is still high. Improvement of diagnostic and treatment options increased staging accuracy, functional outcome for early stages as well as survival. Although high quality surgery is still the mainstay of curative treatment, the management of CRC must be a multi-modal approach performed by an experienced multi-disciplinary expert team. Optimal choice of the individual treatment modality according to disease localization and extent, tumour biology and patient factors is able to maintain quality of life, enables long-term survival and even cure in selected patients by a combination of chemotherapy and surgery. Treatment decisions must be based on the available evidence, which has been the basis for this consensus conference-based guideline delivering a clear proposal for diagnostic and treatment measures in each stage of rectal and colon cancer and the individual clinical situations. This ESMO guideline is recommended to be used as the basis for treatment and management decisions.
    Annals of Oncology 10/2012; 23(10):2479-516. · 6.58 Impact Factor
  • C. van de Velde
    European Journal of Surgical Oncology 09/2012; 38(9):732. · 2.89 Impact Factor
  • C. van de Velde
    Radiotherapy and Oncology 05/2012; 103:S36. · 4.86 Impact Factor
  • Expert review of gastroenterology & hepatology 10/2011; 5(5):559-61.
  • C. van de Velde
    European Journal of Cancer 09/2011; 47. · 4.82 Impact Factor

Publication Stats

11k Citations
1,416.26 Total Impact Points

Institutions

  • 1977–2014
    • Leiden University Medical Centre
      • • Department of Surgery
      • • Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology
      • • Department of Clinical Oncology
      Leyden, South Holland, Netherlands
  • 2011
    • Uppsala University
      Uppsala, Uppsala, Sweden
  • 2009
    • Universitair Ziekenhuis Leuven
      Louvain, Flanders, Belgium
  • 1989–2009
    • Leiden University
      • Molecular Cell Biology Group
      Leyden, South Holland, Netherlands
  • 2006
    • University of Groningen
      • Department of Epidemiology
      Groningen, Province of Groningen, Netherlands
  • 1998–1999
    • European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer
      Bruxelles, Brussels Capital Region, Belgium
    • Erasmus MC
      • Department of Oncological Surgery
      Rotterdam, South Holland, Netherlands
    • Institut Jules Bordet
      Bruxelles, Brussels Capital Region, Belgium
  • 1994
    • Erasmus Universiteit Rotterdam
      • Center for Clinical Decision Sciences
      Rotterdam, South Holland, Netherlands
    • National Cancer Center, Japan
      Edo, Tōkyō, Japan
  • 1992
    • National Hospital Organization Kyushu Cancer Center
      Hukuoka, Fukuoka, Japan