Hector Ortiz

EURECCA colorectal: Multidisciplinary management: European consensus conference colon & rectum

BACKGROUND 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. 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. Consensus was achieved using the Delphi method. For the Delphi process, multidisciplinary experts were invited to comment and vote three web-based online voting rounds and 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. This manuscript covers all sentences of the consensus document with the result of the voting. The consensus document represents sections on diagnostics, pathology, surgery, medical oncology, radiotherapy, and follow-up where applicable for treatment of colon cancer, rectal cancer and metastatic colorectal disease separately. Moreover, evidence based algorithms for diagnostics and treatment were composed which were also submitted to the Delphi process. 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 Multidisciplinary consensus on key diagnostic and treatment issues for colon and rectal cancer management using the Delphi method was successful. This consensus document 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.

EURECCA colorectal: Multidisciplinary Mission statement on better care for patients with colon and rectal cancer in Europe

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.

Multicentre propensity score-matched analysis of conventional versus extended abdominoperineal excision for low rectal cancer.

Abdominal perineal excision (APE) was originally described with levator ani removal for rectal cancer. An even wider, more aggressive extralevator resection for APE has been proposed. Although some surgeons are performing a very wide ‘extralevator APE (ELAPE)’, there are few data to recommend it routinely. This multicentre study aimed to compare outcomes of APE and ELAPE.

Experts reviews of the multidisciplinary consensus conference colon and rectal cancer 2012: Science, opinions and experiences from the experts of surgery

The first multidisciplinary consensus conference on colon and rectal cancer was held in December 2012, achieving a majority of consensus for diagnostic and treatment decisions using the Delphi Method. This article will give a critical appraisal of the topics discussed during the meeting and in the consensus document by well-known leaders in surgery that were involved in this multidisciplinary consensus process. Scientific evidence, experience and opinions are collected to support multidisciplinary teams (MDT) with arguments for medical decision-making in diagnosis, staging and treatment strategies for patients with colon or rectal cancer. Surgery is the cornerstone of curative treatment for colon and rectal cancer. Standardizing treatment is an effective instrument to improve outcome of multidisciplinary cancer care for patients with colon and rectal cancer. In this article, a review of the following focuses; Perioperative care, age and colorectal surgery, obstructive colorectal cancer, stenting, surgical anatomical considerations, total mesorectal excision (TME) surgery and training, surgical considerations for locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC) and local recurrent rectal cancer (LRRC), surgery in stage IV colorectal cancer, definitions of quality of surgery, transanal endoscopic microsurgery (TEM), laparoscopic colon and rectal surgery, preoperative radiotherapy and chemoradiotherapy, and how about functional outcome after surgery?

Evidence-based medicine: the time has come to set standards for staging.

For international communication in cancer, staging systems such as TNM are essential; however, the principles and processes used to decide about changes in every new edition of TNM need to be subject to debate. Changes with major impact for patient treatment are introduced without evidence. We think that TNM should be a continual reactive process, rather than a proactive process. Changes should only occur after extensive discussion within the community, and before the introduction of any changes these should be tested for reproducibility and compared to the currently used gold standard. TNM should not be used to test hypotheses. It should introduce established facts that are beneficial to predicting patient prognosis. TNM should thus be restructured on a basis equivalent to evidence‐based guidelines. The strength of the evidence should be explicitly stated and the evidence base given. It is time for the principles of staging to be widely debated and new principles and processes to be introduced to ensure that we are not in the same situation in the future. The disparity between therapeutic decision making and TNM staging is marked and we would appeal for the radical overhaul of TNM staging to make it fit for the twenty‐first century. TNM is central to the management of cancer patients and we must protect and enhance its reputation. Copyright

Impact of a multidisciplinary team training programme on rectal cancer outcomes in Spain

The Spanish Rectal Cancer Project was established in 2006, inspired by the Norwegian Rectal Cancer Project. It consisted of an educational project aiming to introduce mesorectal excision surgery to surgeons, pathologists and radiologists. Its effect on local recurrence (LR) was compared with the Norwegian Project.

Oncological outcome following anastomotic leak in rectal surgery

The influence of anastomotic leak on local recurrence and survival remains debated in rectal cancer.

Multicenter study of outcome in relation to the type of resection in rectal cancer.

BACKGROUND: A surgical teaching and auditing program has been implemented to improve the results of treatment for patients with rectal cancer. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to assess the treatment and outcome in patients resected for rectal cancer, focusing on differences relating to the type of resection. DESIGN: This was an observational study. SETTINGS: The study took place throughout the network of hospitals that compose the National Health Service in Spain. PATIENTS: This study included a consecutive cohort of 3355 patients from the Spanish Rectal Cancer Project. The data of patients who were operated on electively, with curative intent, by anterior resection (n = 2333 [69.5%]), abdominoperineal excision (n = 774 [23.1%]), and Hartmann procedure (n = 248 [7.4%]) between March 2006 and May 2010 were analyzed. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Clinical, pathologic, and outcome results were analyzed in relation to the type of surgery performed. RESULTS: After a median follow-up time of 37 months (interquartile range, 30–48 months), bowel perforations were found to be more common in the Hartmann procedure (12.6%) and abdominoperineal groups (10.1%) than in the anterior resection group (2.3%; p < 0.001). Involvement of the circumferential resection margin was also more common in the Hartmann (16.6%) and abdominoperineal groups (14.3%) than in the anterior resection group (6.6%; p < 0.001). Multivariate analysis showed a negative influence on local recurrence, metastasis, survival for advanced stage, intraoperative perforation, invaded circumferential margin, and Hartmann procedure. However, abdominoperineal excision did not significantly influence local recurrence (HR, 0.945; 95% CI, 0.571–1.563; p = 0.825). LIMITATIONS: The main weakness of this study was the voluntary nature of registration in the Spanish Rectal Cancer Project. CONCLUSIONS: Although bowel perforation and involvement of the circumferential resection margin were more common after abdominoperineal excision than after anterior resection, this study did not identify abdominoperineal excision as a determinant of local recurrence in the context of 3 years of median follow-up.

EURECCA colorectal : Multidisciplinary management: European consensus conference colon a rectum

BACKGROUND 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. 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. Consensus was achieved using the Delphi method. For the Delphi process, multidisciplinary experts were invited to comment and vote three web-based online voting rounds and 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. This manuscript covers all sentences of the consensus document with the result of the voting. The consensus document represents sections on diagnostics, pathology, surgery, medical oncology, radiotherapy, and follow-up where applicable for treatment of colon cancer, rectal cancer and metastatic colorectal disease separately. Moreover, evidence based algorithms for diagnostics and treatment were composed which were also submitted to the Delphi process. 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 Multidisciplinary consensus on key diagnostic and treatment issues for colon and rectal cancer management using the Delphi method was successful. This consensus document 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.

Clinical Assessment of the Incontinent Patient

Besides physiologic investigations and radiology imaging, diagnosis of fecal incontinence requires accurate clinical assessment. By means of a structured scheme, clinical assessment aims to evaluate the whole picture: whether the patient is really incontinent, the etiology of the incontinence, and the nature and severity of the problem. Nevertheless, we must keep in mind that when treating an individual patient, these data may not be enough to define the pathophysiology of the symptom and, therefore, we need the investigations we mentioned initially.