| 1. |
- van de Velde, Cornelis J. H., et al.
(författare)
-
EURECCA colorectal : Multidisciplinary Mission statement on better care for patients with colon and rectal cancer in Europe
- 2013
-
Ingår i: European Journal of Cancer. - : Elsevier BV. - 0959-8049 .- 1879-0852. ; 49:13, s. 2784-2790
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)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.
|
|
| 2. |
- van de Velde, Cornelis J H, et al.
(författare)
-
EURECCA colorectal: Multidisciplinary management: European consensus conference colon & rectum.
- 2014
-
Ingår i: European journal of cancer (Oxford, England : 1990). - : Elsevier BV. - 1879-0852 .- 0959-8049. ; 50:1
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)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.
|
|
| 3. |
- Zweegman, Sonja, et al.
(författare)
-
Melphalan, prednisone, and lenalidomide versus melphalan, prednisone, and thalidomide in untreated multiple myeloma.
- 2016
-
Ingår i: Blood. - : American Society of Hematology. - 1528-0020 .- 0006-4971. ; 127:9, s. 1109-1116
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- The combination of melphalan, prednisone and thalidomide (MPT) is considered standard therapy for newly diagnosed patients with multiple myeloma (NDMM) who are ineligible for stem-cell transplantation. Long term treatment with thalidomide is hampered by neurotoxicity. Melphalan, prednisone and lenalidomide, followed by lenalidomide maintenance therapy showed promising results, without severe neuropathy emerging. We randomly assigned 668 NDMM patients, ineligible for stem-cell transplantation, between nine 4-weekly cycles of MPT followed by thalidomide maintenance until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity (MPT-T) and the same MP regimen with thalidomide being replaced by lenalidomide (MPR-R). This multicenter, open-label, randomised phase 3 trial was undertaken by HOVON and the NMSG. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS). The accrual for the study was completed in October 19, 2012. 318 patients were randomly assigned to receive MPT-T and 319 MPR-R. After a median follow up of 36 months PFS with MPT-T was 20 months (95% CI 18-23 months) versus 23 months (95% CI 19-27 months) with MPR-R (HR 0.87 [0.72-1.04], p=0.12). Response rates were similar, with ≥VGPR 47% and 45% respectively. Hematological toxicity was more pronounced with MPR-R, especially grade 3 and 4 neutropenia: 64 versus 27%. Neuropathy ≥ grade 3 was significantly higher in the MPT-T arm; 16% versus 2% in MPR-R, resulting in a significant shorter duration of maintenance therapy (5 versus 17 months in MPR-R), irrespective of age. MPR-R has no advantage over MPT-T concerning efficacy. The toxicity profile differed with clinically significant neuropathy during thalidomide maintenance versus myelosuppression with MPR.
|
|
| 4. |
- D'Souza, Nigel, et al.
(författare)
-
Definition of the Rectum An International, Expert-based Delphi Consensus
- 2019
-
Ingår i: Annals of Surgery. - : LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS. - 0003-4932 .- 1528-1140. ; 270:6, s. 955-959
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background: The wide global variation in the definition of the rectum has led to significant inconsistencies in trial recruitment, clinical management, and outcomes. Surgical technique and use of preoperative treatment for a cancer of the rectum and sigmoid colon are radically different and dependent on the local definitions employed by the clinical team. A consensus definition of the rectum is needed to standardise treatment. Methods: The consensus was conducted using the Delphi technique with multidisciplinary colorectal experts from October, 2017 to April, 2018. Results: Eleven different definitions for the rectum were used by participants in the consensus. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) was the most frequent modality used to define the rectum (67%), and the preferred modality for 72% of participants. The most agreed consensus landmark (56%) was "the sigmoid take-off,'' an anatomic, image-based definition of the junction of the mesorectum and mesocolon. In the second round, 81% of participants agreed that the sigmoid take-off as seen on computed tomography or MRI achieved consensus, and that it could be implemented in their institution. Also, 87% were satisfied with the sigmoid take-off as the consensus landmark. Conclusion: An international consensus definition for the rectumis the point of the sigmoid take-off as visualized on imaging. The sigmoid take-off can be identified as the mesocolon elongates as the ventral and horizontal course of the sigmoid on axial and sagittal views respectively on cross-sectional imaging. Routine application of this landmark during multidisciplinary team discussion for all patients will enable greater consistency in tumour localisation.
|
|
| 5. |
- Kaçmaz, Enes, et al.
(författare)
-
International survey on opinions and use of minimally invasive surgery in small bowel neuroendocrine neoplasms
- 2022
-
Ingår i: European Journal of Surgical Oncology. - : Elsevier. - 0748-7983 .- 1532-2157. ; 48:6, s. 1251-1257
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- INTRODUCTION: Although minimally invasive surgery is becoming the standard technique in gastrointestinal surgery, implementation for small bowel neuroendocrine neoplasms (SB-NEN) is lagging behind. The aim of this international survey was to gain insights into attitudes towards minimally invasive surgery for resection of SB-NEN and current practices.METHODS: An anonymous survey was sent to surgeons between February and May 2021 via (neuro)endocrine and colorectal societies worldwide. The survey consisted of questions regarding experience of the surgeon with minimally invasive SB-NEN resection and training.RESULTS: A total of 58 responses from five societies across 20 countries were included. Forty-one (71%) respondents worked at academic centers. Thirty-seven (64%) practiced colorectal surgery, 24 (41%) endocrine surgery and 45 (78%) had experience in advanced minimally invasive surgery. An open, laparoscopic or robotic approach was preferred by 23 (42%), 24 (44%), and 8 (15%) respondents, respectively. Reasons to opt for a minimally invasive approach were mainly related to peri-operative benefits, while an open approach was preferred for optimal mesenteric lymphadenectomy and tactile feedback. Additional training in minimally invasive SB-NEN resection was welcomed by 29 (52%) respondents. Forty-three (74%) respondents were interested in collaborating in future studies, with a cumulative median (IQR) annual case load of 172 (86-258).CONCLUSIONS: Among respondents, 69% applies minimally invasive surgery for resection of SB-NEN. Arguments for specific operative approaches differ, and insufficient training in advanced laparoscopic techniques seems to be a barrier. Future collaborative studies can provide better insight in selection criteria and optimal technique.
|
|
| 6. |
- Greijdanus, Nynke G., et al.
(författare)
-
Stoma-free survival after anastomotic leak following rectal cancer resection : worldwide cohort of 2470 patients
- 2023
-
Ingår i: British Journal of Surgery. - : Oxford University Press. - 0007-1323 .- 1365-2168. ; 110:12, s. 1863-1876
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- BACKGROUND: The optimal treatment of anastomotic leak after rectal cancer resection is unclear. This worldwide cohort study aimed to provide an overview of four treatment strategies applied.METHODS: Patients from 216 centres and 45 countries with anastomotic leak after rectal cancer resection between 2014 and 2018 were included. Treatment was categorized as salvage surgery, faecal diversion with passive or active (vacuum) drainage, and no primary/secondary faecal diversion. The primary outcome was 1-year stoma-free survival. In addition, passive and active drainage were compared using propensity score matching (2 : 1).RESULTS: Of 2470 evaluable patients, 388 (16.0 per cent) underwent salvage surgery, 1524 (62.0 per cent) passive drainage, 278 (11.0 per cent) active drainage, and 280 (11.0 per cent) had no faecal diversion. One-year stoma-free survival rates were 13.7, 48.3, 48.2, and 65.4 per cent respectively. Propensity score matching resulted in 556 patients with passive and 278 with active drainage. There was no statistically significant difference between these groups in 1-year stoma-free survival (OR 0.95, 95 per cent c.i. 0.66 to 1.33), with a risk difference of -1.1 (95 per cent c.i. -9.0 to 7.0) per cent. After active drainage, more patients required secondary salvage surgery (OR 2.32, 1.49 to 3.59), prolonged hospital admission (an additional 6 (95 per cent c.i. 2 to 10) days), and ICU admission (OR 1.41, 1.02 to 1.94). Mean duration of leak healing did not differ significantly (an additional 12 (-28 to 52) days).CONCLUSION: Primary salvage surgery or omission of faecal diversion likely correspond to the most severe and least severe leaks respectively. In patients with diverted leaks, stoma-free survival did not differ statistically between passive and active drainage, although the increased risk of secondary salvage surgery and ICU admission suggests residual confounding.
|
|
| 7. |
- Greijdanus, Nynke G., et al.
(författare)
-
Stoma-free survival after rectal cancer resection with anastomotic leakage : development and validation of a prediction model in a large international cohort
- 2023
-
Ingår i: Annals of Surgery. - : Wolters Kluwer. - 0003-4932 .- 1528-1140. ; 278:5, s. 772-780
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Objective: To develop and validate a prediction model (STOMA score) for 1-year stoma-free survival in patients with rectal cancer (RC) with anastomotic leakage (AL).Background: AL after RC resection often results in a permanent stoma.Methods: This international retrospective cohort study (TENTACLE-Rectum) encompassed 216 participating centres and included patients who developed AL after RC surgery between 2014 and 2018. Clinically relevant predictors for 1-year stoma-free survival were included in uni and multivariable logistic regression models. The STOMA score was developed and internally validated in a cohort of patients operated between 2014 and 2017, with subsequent temporal validation in a 2018 cohort. The discriminative power and calibration of the models' performance were evaluated.Results: This study included 2499 patients with AL, 1954 in the development cohort and 545 in the validation cohort. Baseline characteristics were comparable. One-year stoma-free survival was 45.0% in the development cohort and 43.7% in the validation cohort. The following predictors were included in the STOMA score: sex, age, American Society of Anestesiologist classification, body mass index, clinical M-disease, neoadjuvant therapy, abdominal and transanal approach, primary defunctioning stoma, multivisceral resection, clinical setting in which AL was diagnosed, postoperative day of AL diagnosis, abdominal contamination, anastomotic defect circumference, bowel wall ischemia, anastomotic fistula, retraction, and reactivation leakage. The STOMA score showed good discrimination and calibration (c-index: 0.71, 95% CI: 0.66-0.76).Conclusions: The STOMA score consists of 18 clinically relevant factors and estimates the individual risk for 1-year stoma-free survival in patients with AL after RC surgery, which may improve patient counseling and give guidance when analyzing the efficacy of different treatment strategies in future studies.
|
|
