| 1. |
|
|
| 2. |
- Schmoll, H. J., et al.
(författare)
-
ESMO Consensus Guidelines for management of patients with colon and rectal cancer. A personalized approach to clinical decision making
- 2012
-
Ingår i: Annals of Oncology. - : Elsevier BV. - 0923-7534 .- 1569-8041. ; 23:10, s. 2479-2516
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)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.
|
|
| 3. |
|
|
| 4. |
|
|
| 5. |
- Perkmann, M., et al.
(författare)
-
Academic engagement and commercialisation: A review of the literature on university-industry relations
- 2013
-
Ingår i: Research Policy. - : Elsevier BV. - 0048-7333 .- 1873-7625. ; 42:2, s. 423-442
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- A considerable body of work highlights the relevance of collaborative research, contract research, consulting and informal relationships for university–industry knowledge transfer. We present a systematic review of research on academic scientists’ involvement in these activities to which we refer as ‘academic engagement’. Apart from extracting findings that are generalisable across studies, we ask how academic engagement differs from commercialisation, defined as intellectual property creation and academic entrepreneurship. We identify the individual, organisational and institutional antecedents and consequences of academic engagement, and then compare these findings with the antecedents and consequences of commercialisation. Apart from being more widely practiced, academic engagement is distinct from commercialisation in that it is closely aligned with traditional academic research activities, and pursued by academics to access resources supporting their research agendas. We conclude by identifying future research needs, opportunities for methodological improvement and policy interventions.
|
|
| 6. |
- Goey, Kaitlyn K. H., et al.
(författare)
-
Consensus statement on essential patient characteristics in systemic treatment trials for metastatic colorectal cancer : Supported by the ARCAD Group
- 2018
-
Ingår i: European Journal of Cancer. - : ELSEVIER SCI LTD. - 0959-8049 .- 1879-0852. ; 100, s. 35-45
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background: Patient characteristics and stratification factors are key features influencing trial outcomes. However, there is substantial heterogeneity in reporting of patient characteristics and use of stratification factors in phase 3 trials investigating systemic treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). We aimed to develop a minimum set of essential baseline characteristics and stratification factors to include in such trials. Methods: We performed a modified, two-round Delphi survey among international experts with wide experience in the conduct and methodology of phase 3 trials of systemic treatment of mCRC. Results: Thirty mCRC experts from 15 different countries completed both consensus rounds. A total of 14 patient characteristics were included in the recommended set: age, performance status, primary tumour location, primary tumour resection, prior chemotherapy, number of metastatic sites, liver-only disease, liver involvement, surgical resection of metastases, synchronous versus metachronous metastases, (K)RAS and BRAF mutation status, microsatellite instability/mismatch repair status and number of prior treatment lines. A total of five patient characteristics were considered the most relevant stratification factors: RAS/BRAF mutation status, performance status, primary tumour sidedness and liver-only disease. Conclusions: This survey provides a minimum set of essential baseline patient characteristics and stratification factors to include in phase 3 trials of systemic treatment of mCRC. Inclusion of these patient characteristics and strata in study protocols and final study reports will improve interpretation of trial results and facilitate cross-study comparisons.
|
|
| 7. |
|
|
| 8. |
|
|
| 9. |
- Nordlinger, B., et al.
(författare)
-
Combination of surgery and chemotherapy and the role of targeted agents in the treatment of patients with colorectal liver metastases : recommendations from an expert panel
- 2009
-
Ingår i: Annals of Oncology. - : Elsevier BV. - 0923-7534 .- 1569-8041. ; 20:6, s. 985-992
-
Forskningsöversikt (refereegranskat)abstract
- The past 5 years have seen the clear recognition that the administration of chemotherapy to patients with initially unresectable colorectal liver metastases can increase the number of patients who can undergo potentially curative secondary liver resection. Coupled with this, recent data have emerged that show that perioperative chemotherapy confers a disease-free survival advantage over surgery alone in colorectal cancer (CRC) patients with initially resectable liver disease. The purpose of this paper is to build on the existing knowledge and review the issues surrounding the use of chemotherapy +/- targeted agents combined with surgery in the treatment of CRC patients with liver metastases, with a view to providing clinical recommendations. An international panel of 21 experts in colorectal oncology comprising liver surgeons and medical oncologists reviewed the available evidence. In a major change to clinical practice, the panel's recommendation was that the majority of patients with CRC liver metastases should be treated up front with chemotherapy, irrespective of the initial resectability status of their metastases.
|
|
| 10. |
- Punt, Cornelis J A, et al.
(författare)
-
Endpoints in adjuvant treatment trials : a systematic review of the literature in colon cancer and proposed definitions for future trials.
- 2007
-
Ingår i: Journal of the National Cancer Institute. - : Oxford University Press (OUP). - 0027-8874 .- 1460-2105. ; 99:13, s. 998-1003
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Disease-free survival is increasingly being used as the primary endpoint of most trials testing adjuvant treatments in cancer. Other frequently used endpoints include overall survival, recurrence-free survival, and time to recurrence. These endpoints are often defined differently in different trials in the same type of cancer, leading to a lack of comparability among trials. In this Commentary, we used adjuvant studies in colon cancer as a model to address this issue. In a systematic review of the literature, we identified 52 studies of adjuvant treatment in colon cancer published in 1997–2006 that used eight other endpoints in addition to overall survival. Both the definition of these endpoints and the starting point for measuring time to the events that constituted these endpoints varied widely. A panel of experts on clinical research on colorectal cancer then reached consensus on the definition of each endpoint. Disease-free survival—defined as the time from randomization to any event, irrespective of cause—was considered to be the most informative endpoint for assessing the effect of treatment and therefore the most relevant to clinical practice. The proposed guidelines may add to the quality and cross-comparability of future studies of adjuvant treatments for cancer.
|
|
