| 1. |
|
|
| 2. |
|
|
| 3. |
|
|
| 4. |
|
|
| 5. |
|
|
| 6. |
|
|
| 7. |
- Bushati, M., et al.
(författare)
-
The current practice of cytoreductive surgery and HIPEC for colorectal peritoneal metastases : Results of a worldwide web-based survey of the Peritoneal Surface Oncology Group International (PSOGI)
- 2018
-
Ingår i: European Journal of Surgical Oncology. - : ELSEVIER SCI LTD. - 0748-7983 .- 1532-2157. ; 44:12, s. 1942-1948
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background: At present, selected patients with resectable colorectal peritoneal metastases (CRC-PM) are increasingly treated with a combination therapy of cytoreductive surgery (CRS) and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC). The aim of this study was to investigate the current worldwide practice.Methods: HIPEC experts from 19 countries were invited through the Peritoneal Surface Oncology Group International (PSOGI) to complete an online survey concerning their personal expertise and current hospital and country wide practice.Results: It is estimated that currently more than 3800 patients with CRC-PM (synchronous and metachronous) are annually treated with CRS and HIPEC in 430 centers. Integration of CRS and HIPEC in national guidelines varies, resulting in large treatment disparities between countries. Amongst the experts, there was general agreement on issues related to indication, surgical technique and follow up but less on systemic chemotherapy or proactive strategies.Conclusion: This international survey demonstrates that CRS and HIPEC is now performed on a large scale for CRC-PM patients. Variation in treatment may result in heterogeneity in surgical and oncological outcomes, emphasising the necessity to reach consensus on several issues of this comprehensive procedure. Future initiatives directed at achieving an international consensus statement are needed.
|
|
| 8. |
- Bustin, Stephen A., et al.
(författare)
-
The need for transparency and good practices in the qPCR literature
- 2013
-
Ingår i: Nature Methods. - : Springer Science and Business Media LLC. - 1548-7091 .- 1548-7105. ; 10:11, s. 1063-1067
-
Tidskriftsartikel (övrigt vetenskapligt/konstnärligt)abstract
- Two surveys of over 1,700 publications whose authors use quantitative real-time PCR (qPCR) reveal a lack of transparent and comprehensive reporting of essential technical information. Reporting standards are significantly improved in publications that cite the Minimum Information for Publication of Quantitative Real-Time PCR Experiments (MIQE) guidelines, although such publications are still vastly outnumbered by those that do not.
|
|
| 9. |
- Muysoms, F. E., et al.
(författare)
-
Recommendations for reporting outcome results in abdominal wall repair
- 2013
-
Ingår i: Hernia. - : Springer Science and Business Media LLC. - 1248-9204 .- 1265-4906. ; 17:4, s. 423-433
-
Forskningsöversikt (refereegranskat)abstract
- The literature dealing with abdominal wall surgery is often flawed due to lack of adherence to accepted reporting standards and statistical methodology. The EuraHS Working Group (European Registry of Abdominal Wall Hernias) organised a consensus meeting of surgical experts and researchers with an interest in abdominal wall surgery, including a statistician, the editors of the journal Hernia and scientists experienced in meta-analysis. Detailed discussions took place to identify the basic ground rules necessary to improve the quality of research reports related to abdominal wall reconstruction. A list of recommendations was formulated including more general issues on the scientific methodology and statistical approach. Standards and statements are available, each depending on the type of study that is being reported: the CONSORT statement for the Randomised Controlled Trials, the TREND statement for non randomised interventional studies, the STROBE statement for observational studies, the STARLITE statement for literature searches, the MOOSE statement for metaanalyses of observational studies and the PRISMA statement for systematic reviews and meta-analyses. A number of recommendations were made, including the use of previously published standard definitions and classifications relating to hernia variables and treatment; the use of the validated Clavien-Dindo classification to report complications in hernia surgery; the use of "time-to-event analysis" to report data on "freedom-of-recurrence" rather than the use of recurrence rates, because it is more sensitive and accounts for the patients that are lost to follow-up compared with other reporting methods. A set of recommendations for reporting outcome results of abdominal wall surgery was formulated as guidance for researchers. It is anticipated that the use of these recommendations will increase the quality and meaning of abdominal wall surgery research.
|
|
| 10. |
- Smith, H. G., et al.
(författare)
-
Variations in the definition and perceived importance of positive resection margins in patients with colorectal cancer - an EYSAC international survey
- 2023
-
Ingår i: EJSO. - 0748-7983 .- 1532-2157. ; 49:11
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Introduction: Microscopically positive resection margins (R1) are associated with poorer outcomes in patients with colorectal cancer. However, different definitions of R1 margins exist. It is unclear to what extent the definitions used in everyday clinical practice differ within and between nations. This study sought to investigate variations in the definition of R1 margins in colorectal cancer and the importance of margin status in clinical decision-making.Materials and methods: A 14-point survey was developed by members of The European Society of Surgical Oncology (ESSO) Youngs Surgeons and Alumni Club (EYSAC) Research Academy targeting all members of the multidisciplinary team (MDT) treating patients with colorectal cancer. The survey was distributed on social media, in ESSO's monthly newsletter and via national societies.Results: In total, 137 responses were received. Most respondents were from Europe (89.7%), with the majority from Denmark (56.9%). Less than 2/3 of respondents defined R1 margins as the presence of viable cancer cells <= 1 mm of the margin. Only 60% reported that subdivisions of R1 margins (primary tumour vs tumour deposit vs metastatic lymph node) are routinely available. More than 20% of respondents reported that pathology reports are not routinely reviewed at MDT meetings. Less than half of respondents considered margin status in decisionmaking for type and duration of adjuvant chemotherapy in Stage III colon cancer.Conclusion: The definitions and perceived clinical importance of microscopically positive margins in patients with colorectal cancer appear to vary. Adoption of an international dataset for pathology reporting may help to standardise current practices.
|
|
