Impact des conférences de consensus sur la prise en charge du cancer du côlon et du rectum

Borie, F.; Nasser, Maliha; Herrero, Astrid; Gras-Aygon, Claudine; Crisap-Lr,; Jp, Daurès; Trétarre, Brigitte

doi:10.1016/s0021-7697(08)73754-2

Cited by 4 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 10 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Similarly, practice may vary between countries and continents because surgeons prefer treatment according to their own guidelines. Implementation of national guidelines of clinical practice seems slow, as pointed out in other surveys [12, 13] and has been demonstrated among colorectal surgeons [14–18]. The differences in preoperative staging and treatment options cannot be explained by the heterogeneity of the institutional affiliations of the participants.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

International Preoperative Rectal Cancer Management: Staging, Neoadjuvant Treatment, and Impact of Multidisciplinary Teams

et al. 2010

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundLittle is known regarding variations in preoperative treatment and practice for rectal cancer (RC) on an international level, yet practice variation may result in differences in recurrence and survival rates.MethodsOne hundred seventy-three international colorectal centers were invited to participate in a survey of preoperative management of rectal cancer.ResultsOne hundred twenty-three (71%) responded, with a majority of respondents from North America, Europe, and Asia. Ninety-three percent have more than 5 years’ experience with rectal cancer surgery. Fifty-five percent use CT scan, 35% MRI, 29% ERUS, 12% digital rectal examination and 1% PET scan in all RC cases. Seventy-four percent consider threatened circumferential margin (CRM) an indication for neoadjuvant treatment. Ninety-two percent prefer 5-FU-based long-course neoadjuvant chemoradiation therapy (CRT). A significant difference in practice exists between the US and non-US surgeons: poor histological differentiation as an indication for CRT (25% vs. 7.0%, p = 0.008), CRT for stage II and III rectal cancer (92% vs. 43%, p = 0.0001), MRI for all RC patients (20% vs. 42%, p = 0.03), and ERUS for all RC patients (43% vs. 21%, p = 0.01). Multidisciplinary team meetings significantly influence decisions for MRI (RR = 3.62), neoadjuvant treatment (threatened CRM, RR = 5.67, stage II + III RR = 2.98), quality of pathology report (RR = 4.85), and sphincter-saving surgery (RR = 3.81).ConclusionsThere was little consensus on staging, neoadjuvant treatment, and preoperative management of rectal cancer. Regular multidisciplinary team meetings influence decisions about neoadjuvant treatment and staging methods.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%