| 1. |
- Hansdotter, P., et al.
(författare)
-
Patterns and resectability of colorectal cancer recurrences: outcome study within the COLOFOL trial
- 2021
-
Ingår i: BJS open. - : Oxford University Press (OUP). - 2474-9842. ; 5:4
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- BACKGROUND: Improvements in surgery, imaging, adjuvant treatment, and management of metastatic disease have led to modification of previous approaches regarding the risk of recurrence and prognosis in colorectal cancer. The aims of this study were to map patterns, risk factors, and the possibility of curative treatment of recurrent colorectal cancer in a multimodal setting. METHODS: This was a cohort study based on the COLOFOL trial population of patients who underwent radical resection of stage II or III colorectal cancer. The medical files of all patients with recurrence within 5years after resection of the primary tumour were scrutinized. Follow-up time was 5years after the first recurrence. Primary endpoints were cumulative incidence, site, timing, and risk factors for recurrence, and rate of potentially curative treatment. A secondary endpoint was survival. RESULTS: Of 2442 patients, 471 developed recurrences. The 5-year cumulative incidence was 21.4 (95 per cent c.i. 19.5 to 23.3) per cent. The median time to detection was 1.1years after surgery and 87.3 per cent were detected within 3years. Some 98.2 per cent of patients who had potentially curative treatment were assessed by a multidisciplinary tumour board. A total of 47.8 per cent of the recurrences were potentially curatively treated. The 5-year overall survival rate after detection was 32.0 (95 per cent c.i. 27.9 to 36.3) per cent for all patients with recurrence, 58.6 (51.9 to 64.7) per cent in the potentially curatively treated group and 7.7 (4.8 to 11.5) per cent in the palliatively treated group. CONCLUSION: Time to recurrence was similar to previous results, whereas the 21.4 per cent risk of recurrence was somewhat lower. The high proportion of patients who received potentially curative treatment, linked to a 5-year overall survival rate of 58.6 per cent, indicates that it is possible to achieve good results in recurrent colorectal cancer following multidisciplinary assessment.
|
|
| 2. |
- Hansdotter, Pernilla, et al.
(författare)
-
Treatment and survival of patients with metachronous colorectal lung metastases
- 2023
-
Ingår i: Journal of Surgical Oncology. - : John Wiley & Sons. - 0022-4790 .- 1096-9098. ; 127:5, s. 806-814
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Introduction: The lungs are the second most common site for metachronous metastases in colorectal cancer. No treatment algorithm is established, and the role of adjuvant chemotherapy is unclear. This study aimed to map pulmonary recurrences in a modern multimodal treated population, and to evaluate survival depending on management.Methods: Retrospective study based on the COLOFOL-trial population of 2442 patients, radically resected for colorectal cancer stage II-III. All recurrences within 5 years were identified and medical records were scrutinized.Results: Of 165 (6.8%) patients developing lung metastases as first recurrence, 89 (54%) were confined to the lungs. Potentially curative treatment was possible in 62 (37%) cases, of which 33 with surgery only and 29 with surgery and chemotherapy combined. The 5-year overall survival (5-year OS) for all lung recurrences was 28%. In patients treated with chemotherapy only the 5-year OS was 7.5%, compared with 55% in patients treated with surgery, and 72% when surgery was combined with chemotherapy. Hazard ratio for mortality was 2.9 (95% confidence interval 1.40-6.10) for chemotherapy only compared to surgery.Conclusion: A high proportion of metachronous lung metastases after colorectal surgery were possible to resect, yielding good survival. The combination of surgery and chemotherapy might be advantageous for survival.
|
|
| 3. |
- Lawler, Mark, et al.
(författare)
-
European Groundshot-addressing Europe's cancer research challenges: a Lancet Oncology Commission.
- 2023
-
Ingår i: The Lancet. Oncology. - 1474-5488 .- 1470-2045. ; 24:1
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Cancer research is a crucial pillar for countries to deliver more affordable, higher quality, and more equitable cancer care. Patients treated in research-active hospitals have better outcomes than patients who are not treated in these settings. However, cancer in Europe is at a crossroads. Cancer was already a leading cause of premature death before the COVID-19 pandemic, and the disastrous effects of the pandemic on early diagnosis and treatment will probably set back cancer outcomes in Europe by almost a decade. Recognising the pivotal importance of research not just to mitigate the pandemic today, but to build better European cancer services and systems for patients tomorrow, the Lancet Oncology European Groundshot Commission on cancer research brings together a wide range of experts, together with detailed new data on cancer research activity across Europe during the past 12 years. We have deployed this knowledge to help inform Europe's Beating Cancer Plan and the EU Cancer Mission, and to set out an evidence-driven, patient-centred cancer research roadmap for Europe. The high-resolution cancer research data we have generated show current activities, captured through different metrics, including by region, disease burden, research domain, and effect on outcomes. We have also included granular data on research collaboration, gender of researchers, and research funding. The inclusion of granular data has facilitated the identification of areas that are perhaps overemphasised in current cancer research in Europe, while also highlighting domains that are underserved. Our detailed data emphasise the need for more information-driven and data-driven cancer research strategies and planning going forward. A particular focus must be on central and eastern Europe, because our findings emphasise the widening gap in cancer research activity, and capacity and outcomes, compared with the rest of Europe. Citizens and patients, no matter where they are, must benefit from advances in cancer research. This Commission also highlights that the narrow focus on discovery science and biopharmaceutical research in Europe needs to be widened to include such areas as prevention and early diagnosis; treatment modalities such as radiotherapy and surgery; and a larger concentration on developing a research and innovation strategy for the 20 million Europeans living beyond a cancer diagnosis. Our data highlight the important role of comprehensive cancer centres in driving the European cancer research agenda. Crucial to a functioning cancer research strategy and its translation into patient benefit is the need for a greater emphasis on health policy and systems research, including implementation science, so that the innovative technological outputs from cancer research have a clear pathway to delivery. This European cancer research Commission has identified 12 key recommendations within a call to action to reimagine cancer research and its implementation in Europe. We hope this call to action will help to achieve our ambitious 70:35 target: 70% average survival for all European cancer patients by 2035.
|
|
| 4. |
- Martin, David, et al.
(författare)
-
Defining Major Surgery: A Delphi Consensus Among European Surgical Association (ESA) Members
- 2020
-
Ingår i: World Journal of Surgery. - : Springer Science and Business Media LLC. - 0364-2313 .- 1432-2323. ; 44:7, s. 2211-2219
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- © 2020, Société Internationale de Chirurgie. Background: Major surgery is a term frequently used but poorly defined. The aim of the present study was to reach a consensus in the definition of major surgery within a panel of expert surgeons from the European Surgical Association (ESA). Methods: A 3-round Delphi process was performed. All ESA members were invited to participate in the expert panel. In round 1, experts were inquired by open- and closed-ended questions on potential criteria to define major surgery. Results were analyzed and presented back anonymously to the panel within next rounds. Closed-ended questions in round 2 and 3 were either binary or statements to be rated on a Likert scale ranging from 1 (strong disagreement) to 5 (strong agreement). Participants were sent 3 reminders at 2-week intervals for each round. 70% of agreement was considered to indicate consensus. Results: Out of 305 ESA members, 67 (22%) answered all the 3 rounds. Significant comorbidities were the only preoperative factor retained to define major surgery (78%). Vascular clampage or organ ischemia (92%), high intraoperative blood loss (90%), high noradrenalin requirements (77%), long operative time (73%) and perioperative blood transfusion (70%) were procedure-related factors that reached consensus. Regarding postoperative factors, systemic inflammatory response (76%) and the need for intensive or intermediate care (88%) reached consensus. Consequences of major surgery were high morbidity (>30% overall) and mortality (>2%). Conclusion: ESA experts defined major surgery according to extent and complexity of the procedure, its pathophysiological consequences and consecutive clinical outcomes.
|
|
| 5. |
- Scherman, Peter, et al.
(författare)
-
High resection rates of colorectal liver metastases after standardized follow-up and multimodal management: an outcome study within the COLOFOL trial
- 2023
-
Ingår i: Hpb. - : Elsevier BV. - 1365-182X. ; 25:7, s. 766-774
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background: Outcome after colorectal liver metastases (CRLM) resection has improved over time, despite increased resection rates. Hence, it's crucial to identify all patients possible to treat with curative intent. The objectives of this study were to map recurrence pattern, treatment strategy and survival depending on treatment and follow-up strategy.Methods: In the COLOFOL-trial, patients with radically resected stage II-III colorectal cancer were randomized to high-frequency (6, 12, 18, 24 and 36 months; HF) or low-frequency (12 and 36 months; LF) follow-up. In this study, all CRLM within 5 years were identified and medical files scrutinized. Overall survival (OS) was analysed in uni- and multivariable analyses. Primary endpoint was 5-year OS. Results: Of 2442 patients, 235 (9.6%) developed metachronous CRLM of which 123 (52.3%) underwent treatment with curative intent, resulting in 5-year OS of 58%. Five-year OS for patients with CRLM was 43% after HF versus 24% after LF. The survival benefit was confirmed for HF 8 years from resection of the primary tumour, HR 0.63 (CI 0.46-0.85).Conclusion: A high proportion of metachronous CRLM was possible to treat with curative intent, yielding high survival rates. More intense follow-up after colorectal cancer resection might be of value in high-risk patients.
|
|
| 6. |
- Scherman, Peter, et al.
(författare)
-
Impact of patient, primary tumor and metastatic pattern including tumor location on survival in patients undergoing ablation or resection for colorectal liver metastases: A population-based national cohort study
- 2021
-
Ingår i: European Journal of Surgical Oncology. - : Elsevier BV. - 0748-7983 .- 1532-2157. ; 47:2, s. 375-383
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Introduction Selecting the optimal treatment strategy for patients with colorectal liver metastases (CRLM) aim to improve survival for the total cohort. Following the introduction of laparoscopic resections and ablation, localization may direct choice of method. The aim with this study was to re-evaluate prognostic factors that should be considered at the preoperative multidisciplinary tumor board, based on a national population cohort. Materials and methods A national cohort with radically operated colorectal cancer in 2009-2013, also treated for CRLM was identified in Swedish national registries. Prognostic factors were identified and evaluated in multivariable analyses. Results 1200 patients treated with resection and 125 with ablation only were included in the study cohort. Relative five-year survival was 54.7% (50.9%-58.4%) and 32.0% (22.4%-41.9%), respectively). High age, acute surgery and complications at time of primary tumor resection remained important risk factors at liver surgery, as well as the primary tumor characteristics; vascular invasion and high lymph node ratio. As for metastatic pattern; tumor size, location in segment 4, 6, 7 or 8, multiple metastatic sites and progress after preoperative chemotherapy were significant risk factors. In multivariate analyses, ablation therapy doubled the risk of death within 5 years. This strong negative impact was confirmed in a weighted propensity score analysis (HR = 2.1 (95 % CI 1.5 -3.0)). Conclusion Segmental localization and tumor size were prognostic factors but also patient and primary tumor factors significantly impacted survival after intervention for CRLM. Long-term survival was significantly lower after ablation therapy compared to surgical resection.
|
|
| 7. |
- Scherman, Peter, et al.
(författare)
-
Influence of primary tumour and patient factors on survival in patients undergoing curative resection and treatment for liver metastases from colorectal cancer
- 2020
-
Ingår i: Bjs Open. - : Oxford University Press (OUP). - 2474-9842. ; 4:1, s. 118-132
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background Resection of the primary tumour is a prerequisite for cure in patients with colorectal cancer, but hepatic metastasectomy has been used increasingly with curative intent. This national registry study examined prognostic factors for radically treated primary tumours, including the subgroup of patients undergoing liver metastasectomy. Methods Patients who had radical resection of primary colorectal cancer in 2009-2013 were identified in a population-based Swedish colorectal registry and cross-checked in a registry of liver tumours. Data on primary tumour and patient characteristics were extracted and prognostic impact was analysed. Results Radical resection was registered in 20 853 patients; in 38 center dot 7 per cent of those registered with liver metastases, surgery or ablation was performed. The age-standardized relative 5-year survival rate after radical resection of colorectal cancer was 80 center dot 9 (95 per cent c.i. 80 center dot 2 to 81 center dot 6) per cent, and the rate after surgery for colorectal liver metastases was 49 center dot 6 (46 center dot 0 to 53 center dot 2) per cent. Multivariable analysis identified lymph node status, multiple sites of metastasis, high ASA grade and postoperative complications after resection of the primary tumour as strong risk factors after primary resection and following subsequent liver resection or ablation. Age, sex and primary tumour location had no prognostic impact on mortality after liver resection. Conclusion Lymph node status and complications have a negative impact on outcome after both primary resection and liver surgery. Older age and female sex were underrepresented in the liver surgical cohort, but these factors did not influence prognosis significantly.
|
|
| 8. |
- Scherman, Peter, et al.
(författare)
-
Risk Factors for Postoperative Complications Following Resection of Colorectal Liver Metastases and the Impact on Long-Term Survival: A Population-Based National Cohort Study
- 2023
-
Ingår i: World Journal of Surgery. - 0364-2313. ; 47:9, s. 2230-2240
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- BackgroundPostoperative complications (POCs) following resection of colorectal liver metastases (CRLM) are common. The objective of this study was to evaluate risk factors for developing complications and their impact on survival considering prognostic factors of the primary tumor, metastatic pattern and treatment in a well-defined national cohort.MethodsPatients treated with resection for CRLM that was also radically resected for their primary colorectal cancer (diagnosed in 2009-2013) were identified in Swedish national registers. Liver resections were categorized according to extent of surgery (Category I-IV). Risk factors for developing POCs as well as prognostic impact of POCs were evaluated in multivariable analyses. A subgroup analysis of minor resections was performed to evaluate POCs after laparoscopic surgery.ResultsPOCs were registered for 24% (276/1144) of all patients after CRLM resection. Major resection was a risk factor for POCs in multivariable analysis (IRR 1.76; P = 0.001). Comparing laparoscopic and open resections in the subgroup analysis of small resections, 6% (4/68) in the laparoscopic group developed POCs compared to 18% (51/289) after open resection (IRR 0.32; P = 0.024). POCs were associated with a 27% increased excess mortality rate (EMRR 1.27; P = 0.044). However, primary tumor characteristics, tumor burden in the liver, extrahepatic spread, extent of liver resection and radicality had higher impact on survival.ConclusionMinimal invasive resections were associated with a decreased risk of POCs following resection of CRLM which should be considered in surgical strategy. Postoperative complications were associated with a moderate risk for inferior survival.
|
|
| 9. |
- Biganzoli, L., et al.
(författare)
-
The requirements of a specialist breast centre
- 2020
-
Ingår i: Breast. - : Elsevier BV. - 0960-9776 .- 1532-3080. ; 51, s. 65-84
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- This article is an update of the requirements of a specialist breast centre, produced by EUSOMA and endorsed by ECCO as part of Essential Requirements for Quality Cancer Care (ERQCC) programme, and ESMO. To meet aspirations for comprehensive cancer control, healthcare organisations must consider the requirements in this article, paying particular attention to multidisciplinarity and patient-centred pathways from diagnosis, to treatment, to survivorship. The centrepiece of this article is the requirements section, comprising definitions; multidisciplinary structure; minimum case, procedure and staffing volumes; and detailed descriptions of the skills of, and resources needed by, members and specialisms in the multidisciplinary team in a breast centre. These requirements are positioned within narrative on European breast cancer epidemiology, the standard of care, challenges to delivering this standard, and supporting evidence, to enable a broad audience to appreciate the importance of establishing these requirements in specialist breast centres. (C) 2020 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.
|
|
| 10. |
- Borras, J. M., et al.
(författare)
-
Innovation, value and reimbursement in radiation and complex surgical oncology: Time to rethink
- 2022
-
Ingår i: Radiotherapy and Oncology. - : Elsevier BV. - 0167-8140. ; 169, s. 114-123
-
Forskningsöversikt (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background and purpose: Complex surgery and radiotherapy are the central pillars of loco-regional oncology treatment. This paper describes the reimbursement schemes used in radiation and complex surgical oncology, reports on literature and policy reviews. Material and methods: A systematic review of the literature of the reimbursement models has been carried out separately for radiotherapy and complex cancer surgery based on PRISMA guidelines. Using searches of PubMed and grey literature, we identified articles from scientific journals and reports published since 2000 on provider payment or reimbursement systems currently used in radiation oncology and complex cancer surgery, also including policy models. Results: Most European health systems reimburse radiotherapy using a budget-based, fee-for-service or fraction-based system; while few reimburse services according to an episode-based model. Also, the reimbursement models for cancer surgery are mostly restricted to differences embedded in the DRG system and adjustments applied to the fees, based on the complexity of each surgical procedure. There is an enormous variability in reimbursement across countries, resulting in different incentives and different amounts paid for the same therapeutic strategy. Conclusion: A reimbursement policy, based on the episode of care as the basic payment unit, is advocated for. Innovation should be tackled in a two-tier approach: one defining the common criteria for reimbursement of proven evidence-based interventions; another for financing emerging innovation with uncertain definitive value. Relevant clinical and economic data, also collected real-life, should support reimbursement systems that mirror the actual cost of evidence-based practice.
|
|
