ESTRO/ACROP IORT recommendations for intraoperative radiation therapy in primary locally advanced rectal cancer

Summary: Carcinoma of the rectum is a heterogeneous disease. The clinical spectrum identifies a subset of patients with locally advanced tumours that are close to or involve adjoining structures, such as the sacrum, pelvic sidewalls, prostate or bladder. Within this group of patients categorized as ‘‘locally advanced”, there is also variability in the extent of disease with no uniform definition of resectability. A practice-oriented definition of a locally advanced tumour is a tumour that cannot be resected without leaving microscopic or gross residual disease at the resection site. Since these patients do poorly with surgery alone, irradiation and chemotherapy have been added to improve the outcome. Intraoperative irradiation (IORT) is a component of local treatment intensification with favourable results in this subgroup of patients. International guidelines (National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines) currently recommend the use of IORT for rectal cancer resectable with very close or positive margins, especially for T4 and recurrent cancers. We report the ESTRO-ACROP (European Society for Radiotherapy and Oncology - Advisory Committee on Radiation Oncology Practice) recommendations for performing IORT in primary locally advanced rectal cancer

Cost-effectiveness of collaborative care for the treatment of major depressive disorder in primary care. A systematic review

Background. The effectiveness of collaborative care for patients with major depressive disorder in primary care has been established. Assessing its cost-effectiveness is important for deciding on implementation. This review therefore evaluates the cost-effectiveness of collaborative care for major depressive disorder in primary care. Methods. A systematic search on economic evaluations of collaborative care was conducted in Pubmed and PsychInfo. Quality of the studies was measured with the Cochrane checklist and the CHEC-list for economic evaluations. Cost-effectiveness and costs per depression-free days were reported. Results. 8 studies were found, involving 4868 patients. The quality of the cost effectiveness studies, according to the CHEC-list, could be improved. Generally, the studies did not include all relevant costs and did not perform sensitivity analysis. Only 4 out of 8 studies reported cost per QALY, 6 out of 8 reported costs per depression-free days. The highest costs per QALY reported were $49,500, the highest costs per depression-free day were$24. Conclusions. Although studies did not fulfil all criteria of the CHEC-list, collaborative care is a promising intervention and it may be cost-effective. However, to conclude on the cost-effectiveness, depression research should follow economic guidelines to improve the quality of the economic evaluations

Insurance Firms in Process of Industrialization

Background: Primary perineal wound closure after conventional abdominoperineal resection (cAPR) for rectal cancer has been the standard of care for many years. Since the introduction of neo-adjuvant radiotherapy and the extralevator APR (eAPR), oncological outcome has been improved, but at the cost of increased rates of perineal wound healing problems and perineal hernia. This has progressively increased the use of biological meshes, although not supported by sufficient evidence. The aim of this study is to determine the effectiveness of pelvic floor reconstruction using a biological mesh after standardized eAPR with neo-adjuvant (chemo) radiotherapy compared to primary perineal wound closure. Methods/Design: In this multicentre randomized controlled trial, patients with a clinical diagnosis of primary rectal cancer who are scheduled for eAPR after neo-adjuvant (chemo) radiotherapy will be considered eligible. Exclusion criteria are prior radiotherapy, sacral resection above S4/S5, allergy to pig products or polysorbate, collagen disorders, and severe systemic diseases affecting wound healing, except for diabetes. After informed consent, 104 patients will be randomized between standard care using primary wound closure of the perineum and the experimental arm consisting of suturing a biological mesh derived from porcine dermis in the pelvic floor defect, followed by perineal closure similar to the control arm. Patients will be followed for one year after the intervention and outcome assessors and patients will be blinded for the study treatment. The primary endpoint is the percentage of uncomplicated perineal wound healing, defined as a Southampton wound score of less than II on day 30. Secondary endpoints are hospital stay, incidence of perineal hernia, quality of life, and costs. Discussion: The BIOPEX-study is the first randomized controlled multicentre study to determine the additive value of using a biological mesh for perineal wound closure after eAPR with neo-adjuvant radiotherapy compared to primary perineal wound closure with regard to perineal wound healing and the occurrence of perineal hernia

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

Neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy plus surgery versus active surveillance for oesophageal cancer: A stepped-wedge cluster randomised trial

Background: Neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (nCRT) plus surgery is a standard treatment for locally advanced oesophageal cancer. With this treatment, 29% of patients have a pathologically complete response in the resection specimen. This provides the rationale for investigating an active surveillance approach. The aim of this study is to assess the (cost-)effectiveness of active surveillance vs. standard oesophagectomy after nCRT for oesophageal cancer. Methods: This is a phase-III multi-centre, stepped-wedge cluster randomised controlled trial. A total of 300 patients with clinically complete response (cCR, i.e. no local or disseminated disease proven by histology) after nCRT will be randomised to show non-inferiority of active surveillance to standard oesophagectomy (non-inferiority margin 15%, intra-correlation coefficient 0.02, power 80%, 2-sided α 0.05, 12% drop-out). Patients will undergo a first clinical response evaluation (CRE-I) 4-6 weeks after nCRT, consisting of endoscopy with bite-on-bite biopsies of the primary tumour site and other suspected lesions. Clinically complete responders will undergo a second CRE (CRE-II), 6-8 weeks after CRE-I. CRE-II will include 18F-FDG-PET-CT, followed by endoscopy with bite-on-bite biopsies and ultra-endosonography plus fine needle aspiration of suspected lymph nodes and/or PET- positive lesions. Patients with cCR at CRE-II will be assigned to oesophagectomy (first phase) or active surveillance (second phase of the study). The duration of the first phase is determined randomly over the 12 centres, i.e., stepped-wedge cluster design. Patients in the active surveillance arm will undergo diagnostic evaluations similar to CRE-II at 6/9/12/16/20/24/30/36/48 and 60 months after nCRT. In this arm, oesophagectomy will be offered only to patients in whom locoregional regrowth is highly suspected or proven, without distant dissemination. The main study parameter is overall survival; secondary endpoints include percentage of patients who do not undergo surgery, quality of life, clinical irresectability (cT4b) rate, radical resection rate, postoperative complications, progression-free survival, distant dissemination rate, and cost-effectiveness. We hypothesise that active surveillance leads to non-inferior survival, improved quality of life and a reduction in costs, compared to standard oesophagectomy. Discussion: If active surveillance and surgery as needed after nCRT leads to non-inferior survival compared to standard oesophagectomy, this organ-sparing approach can be implemented as a standard of care