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

German Bowel Cancer Center: An Attempt to Improve Treatment Quality

Background. Colorectal cancer remains the second most common cause of death from malignancies, but treatment results show high diversity. Certified bowel cancer centres (BCC) are the basis of a German project for improvement of treatment. The aim of this study was to analyze if certification would enhance short-term outcome in rectal cancer surgery. Material and Methods. This quality assurance study included 8197 patients with rectal cancer treated between 1 January 2008 and 31 December 2010. We compared cohorts treated in certified and noncertified hospitals regarding preoperative variables and perioperative outcomes. Outcomes were verified by matched-pair analysis. Results. Patients of noncertified hospitals had higher ASA-scores, higher prevalence of risk factors, more distant metastases, lower tumour localization, lower frequency of pelvic MRI, and higher frequencies of missing values and undetermined TNM classifications (significant differences only). Outcome analysis revealed more general complications in certified hospitals (20.3% versus 17.4%, p=0.03). Both cohorts did not differ significantly in percentage of R0-resections, intraoperative complications, anastomotic leakage, in-hospital death, and abdominal wall dehiscence. Conclusions. The concept of BCC is a step towards improving the structural and procedural quality. This is a good basis for improving outcome quality but cannot replace it. For a primary surgical disease like rectal cancer a specific, surgery-targeted program is still needed

Treatment and survival of rectal cancer patients over the age of 80 years: a EURECCA international comparison

Surgical oncolog