| 1. |
- Glimelius, B., et al.
(author)
-
Number of patients potentially eligible for proton therapy
- 2005
-
In: Acta Oncol. - : Informa UK Limited. - 0284-186X .- 1651-226X. ; 44:8, s. 836-49
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- A group of Swedish radiation oncologists and hospital physicists have estimated the number of patients in Sweden suitable for proton beam therapy in a facility where one of the principal aims is to facilitate randomized and other studies in which the advantage of protons can be shown and the magnitude of the differences compared with optimally administered conventional radiation treatment, also including intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) and brachytherapy, can be shown. The estimations have been based on current statistics of tumour incidence in Sweden, number of patients potentially eligible for radiation treatment, scientific support from clinical trials and model dose planning studies and knowledge of the dose-response relations of different tumours together with information on normal tissue complication rates. In Sweden, it is assessed that between 2200 and 2500 patients annually are eligible for proton beam therapy, and that for these patients the potential therapeutic benefit is so great as to justify the additional expense of proton therapy. This constitutes between 14-15% of all irradiated patients annually.
|
|
| 2. |
|
|
| 3. |
- Gerdtsson, Axel, et al.
(author)
-
Validation of a prediction model for post-chemotherapy fibrosis in nonseminoma patients
- 2023
-
In: Bju International. - : John Wiley & Sons. - 1464-4096 .- 1464-410X. ; 132:3, s. 329-336
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Objective To validate Vergouwe's prediction model using the Swedish and Norwegian Testicular Cancer Group (SWENOTECA) RETROP database and to define its clinical utility. Materials and methods Vergouwe's prediction model for benign histopathology in post-chemotherapy retroperitoneal lymph node dissection (PCRPLND) uses the following variables: presence of teratoma in orchiectomy specimen; pre-chemotherapy level of alphafetoprotein; b-Human chorionic gonadotropin and lactate dehydrogenase; and lymph node size pre- and postchemotherapy. Our validation cohort consisted of patients included in RETROP, a prospective population-based database of patients in Sweden and Norway with metastatic nonseminoma, who underwent PC-RPLND in the period 2007-2014. Discrimination and calibration analyses were used to validate Vergouwe's prediction model results. Calibration plots were created and a Hosmer-Lemeshow test was calculated. Clinical utility, expressed as opt-out net benefit (NBopt-out), was analysed using decision curve analysis. Results Overall, 284 patients were included in the analysis, of whom 130 (46%) had benign histology after PC-RPLND. Discrimination analysis showed good reproducibility, with an area under the receiver-operating characteristic curve (AUC) of 0.82 (95% confidence interval 0.77-0.87) compared to Vergouwe's prediction model (AUC between 0.77 and 0.84). Calibration was acceptable with no recalibration. Using a prediction threshold of 70% for benign histopathology, NBopt-out was 0.098. Using the model and this threshold, 61 patients would have been spared surgery. However, only 51 of 61 were correctly classified as benign. Conclusions The model was externally validated with good reproducibility. In a clinical setting, the model may identify patients with a high chance of benign histopathology, thereby sparing patients of surgery. However, meticulous follow-up is required.
|
|
| 4. |
- Glimelius, Bengt, et al.
(author)
-
Adjuvant chemotherapy in colorectal cancer: a joint analysis of randomised trials by the Nordic Gastrointestinal Tumour Adjuvant Therapy Group
- 2005
-
In: Acta Oncol. - : Informa UK Limited. - 0284-186X .- 1651-226X. ; 44:8, s. 904-12
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Due to uncertainties regarding clinically meaningful gains from adjuvant chemotherapy after colorectal cancer surgery, several Nordic Groups in the early 1990s initiated randomised trials to prove or reject such gains. This report gives the joint analyses after a minimum 5-year follow-up. Between October 1991 and December 1997, 2 224 patients under 76 years of age with colorectal cancer stages II and III were randomised to surgery alone (n = 1 121) or adjuvant chemotherapy (n = 1 103) which varied between trials (5FU/levamisole for 12 months, n = 444; 5FU/leucovorin for 4-5 months according to either a modified Mayo Clinic schedule (n = 262) or the Nordic schedule (n = 397). Some centres also randomised patients treated with 5FU/leucovorin to+/-levamisole). A total of 812 patients had colon cancer stage II, 708 colon cancer stage III, 323 rectal cancer stage II and 368 rectal cancer stage III. All analyses were according to intention-to-treat. No statistically significant difference in overall survival, stratified for country or region, could be found in any group of patients according to stage or site. In colon cancer stage III, an absolute difference of 7% (p = 0.15), favouring chemotherapy, was seen. The present analyses corroborate a small but clinically meaningful survival gain from adjuvant chemotherapy in colon cancer stage III, but not in the other presentations.
|
|
| 5. |
- van de Velde, Cornelis J. H., et al.
(author)
-
EURECCA colorectal : Multidisciplinary Mission statement on better care for patients with colon and rectal cancer in Europe
- 2013
-
In: European Journal of Cancer. - : Elsevier BV. - 0959-8049 .- 1879-0852. ; 49:13, s. 2784-2790
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Background: Care for patients with colon and rectal cancer has improved in the last twenty years however still considerable variation exists in cancer management and outcome between European countries. Therefore, EURECCA, which is the acronym of European Registration of cancer care, is aiming at defining core treatment strategies and developing a European audit structure in order to improve the quality of care for all patients with colon and rectal cancer. In December 2012 the first multidisciplinary consensus conference about colon and rectum was held looking for multidisciplinary consensus. The expert panel consisted of representatives of European scientific organisations involved in cancer care of patients with colon and rectal cancer and representatives of national colorectal registries.Methods: The expert panel had delegates of the European Society of Surgical Oncology (ESSO), European Society for Radiotherapy & Oncology (ESTRO), European Society of Pathology (ESP), European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO), European Society of Radiology (ESR), European Society of Coloproctology (ESCP), European CanCer Organisation (ECCO), European Oncology Nursing Society (EONS) and the European Colorectal Cancer Patient Organisation (EuropaColon), as well as delegates from national registries or audits. Experts commented and voted on the two web-based online voting rounds before the meeting (between 4th and 25th October and between the 20th November and 3rd December 2012) as well as one online round after the meeting (4th-20th March 2013) and were invited to lecture on the subjects during the meeting (13th-15th December 2012). The sentences in the consensus document were available during the meeting and a televoting round during the conference by all participants was performed. All sentences that were voted on are available on the EURECCA website www.canceraudit.eu. The consensus document was divided in sections describing evidence based algorithms of diagnostics, pathology, surgery, medical oncology, radiotherapy, and follow-up where applicable for treatment of colon cancer, rectal cancer and stage IV separately. Consensus was achieved using the Delphi method.Results: The total number of the voted sentences was 465. All chapters were voted on by at least 75% of the experts. Of the 465 sentences, 84% achieved large consensus, 6% achieved moderate consensus, and 7% resulted in minimum consensus. Only 3% was disagreed by more than 50% of the members.Conclusions: It is feasible to achieve European Consensus on key diagnostic and treatment issues using the Delphi method. This consensus embodies the expertise of professionals from all disciplines involved in the care for patients with colon and rectal cancer. Diagnostic and treatment algorithms were developed to implement the current evidence and to define core treatment guidance for multidisciplinary team management of colon and rectal cancer throughout Europe.
|
|
| 6. |
- van de Velde, Cornelis J H, et al.
(author)
-
EURECCA colorectal: Multidisciplinary management: European consensus conference colon & rectum.
- 2014
-
In: European journal of cancer (Oxford, England : 1990). - : Elsevier BV. - 1879-0852 .- 0959-8049. ; 50:1
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Care for patients with colon and rectal cancer has improved in the last 20years; however considerable variation still exists in cancer management and outcome between European countries. Large variation is also apparent between national guidelines and patterns of cancer care in Europe. Therefore, EURECCA, which is the acronym of European Registration of Cancer Care, is aiming at defining core treatment strategies and developing a European audit structure in order to improve the quality of care for all patients with colon and rectal cancer. In December 2012, the first multidisciplinary consensus conference about cancer of the colon and rectum was held. The expert panel consisted of representatives of European scientific organisations involved in cancer care of patients with colon and rectal cancer and representatives of national colorectal registries.
|
|
