ESMO Management and treatment adapted recommendations in the COVID-19 era : Breast Cancer

The global preparedness and response to the rapid escalation to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV)-2-related disease (COVID-19) to a pandemic proportion has demanded the formulation of a reliable, useful and evidence-based mechanism for health services prioritisation, to achieve the highest quality standards of care to all patients. The prioritisation of high value cancer interventions must be embedded in the agenda for the pandemic response, ensuring that no inconsistency or discrepancy emerge in the health planning processes. The aim of this work is to organise health interventions for breast cancer management and research in a tiered framework (high, medium, low value), formulating a scheme of prioritisation per clinical cogency and intrinsic value or magnitude of benefit. The public health tools and schemes for priority setting in oncology have been used as models, aspiring to capture clinical urgency, value in healthcare, community goals and fairness, while respecting the principles of benevolence, non-maleficence, autonomy and justice. We discuss the priority health interventions across the cancer continuum, giving a perspective on the role and meaning to maintain some services (undeferrable) while temporarily abrogate some others (deferrable). Considerations for implementation and the essential link to pre-existing health services, especially primary healthcare, are addressed, outlining a framework for the development of effective and functional services, such as telemedicine. The discussion covers the theme of health systems strategising, and why oncology care, in particular breast cancer care, should be maintained in parallel to pandemic control measures, providing a pragmatic clinical model within the broader context of public healthcare schemes

WSES Jerusalem guidelines for diagnosis and treatment of acute appendicitis

Acute appendicitis (AA) is among the most common cause of acute abdominal pain. Diagnosis of AA is challenging; a variable combination of clinical signs and symptoms has been used together with laboratory findings in several scoring systems proposed for suggesting the probability of AA and the possible subsequent management pathway. The role of imaging in the diagnosis of AA is still debated, with variable use of US, CT and MRI in different settings worldwide. Up to date, comprehensive clinical guidelines for diagnosis and management of AA have never been issued. In July 2015, during the 3rd World Congress of the WSES, held in Jerusalem (Israel), a panel of experts including an Organizational Committee and Scientific Committee and Scientific Secretariat, participated to a Consensus Conference where eight panelists presented a number of statements developed for each of the eight main questions about diagnosis and management of AA. The statements were then voted, eventually modified and finally approved by the participants to The Consensus Conference and lately by the board of co-authors. The current paper is reporting the definitive Guidelines Statements on each of the following topics: 1) Diagnostic efficiency of clinical scoring systems, 2) Role of Imaging, 3) Non-operative treatment for uncomplicated appendicitis, 4) Timing of appendectomy and in-hospital delay, 5) Surgical treatment 6) Scoring systems for intra-operative grading of appendicitis and their clinical usefulness 7) Non-surgical treatment for complicated appendicitis: abscess or phlegmon 8) Pre-operative and post-operative antibiotics.Peer reviewe

Impact of the boost dose of 10 Gy versus 26 Gy in patients with early stage breast cancer after a microscopically incomplete lumpectomy: 10-year results of the randomised EORTC boost trial

Purpose: To assess the impact of the boost dose in patients with involved surgical margins. Patients and methods: In the EORTC "boost versus no boost" trial, 251 patients with a microscopically incomplete turnout excision were randomised to receive either a low boost dose of 10 Gy (126 patients) OF a high boost dose of 26 Gy (125 patients). Overall survival and the cumulative incidence of local recurrence as first event were compared by Logrank and Gray test, respectively (2-sided alpha = 0.05), with a median follow-up of 11.3 years. The planned sample size was 660 patients, but only 251 were recruited. Results: The median age at randomisation was 54 years. Thirty-seven patient initially relapsed locally. At 10 years, the cumulative incidence of local recurrence was 17.5% (95% CI: 10.4-24.6%) versus 10.8% (95% CI: 5.2-16.4%) for the low and high boost dose groups, respectively (HR = 0.83, 95% CI: 0.43-1.57, Gray p > 0.1). Overall, 64 patients have died (25.5%), 47 of them of breast cancer, without a difference in duration of survival between the two groups (HR = 0.97, 95% CI = 0.59-1.5, p > 0.1). Severe fibrosis was palpated in the breast in 1% versus 5% and in the boost area in 3% versus 13% in the low and high boost dose groups, respectively. Conclusions: There was no statistically significant difference in local control or survival between the high boost dose of 26 Gy and the low boost dose of 10 Gy in patients with microscopically incomplete excision of early breast cancer. Fibrosis, however, was noted significantly more frequently in cases treated with the high boost dose. (C) 2008 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved. Radiotherapy and Oncology 90 (2009) 80-8

ESMO Management and treatment adapted recommendations in the COVID-19 era : Breast Cancer

The global preparedness and response to the rapid escalation to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV)-2-related disease (COVID-19) to a pandemic proportion has demanded the formulation of a reliable, useful and evidence-based mechanism for health services prioritisation, to achieve the highest quality standards of care to all patients. The prioritisation of high value cancer interventions must be embedded in the agenda for the pandemic response, ensuring that no inconsistency or discrepancy emerge in the health planning processes. The aim of this work is to organise health interventions for breast cancer management and research in a tiered framework (high, medium, low value), formulating a scheme of prioritisation per clinical cogency and intrinsic value or magnitude of benefit. The public health tools and schemes for priority setting in oncology have been used as models, aspiring to capture clinical urgency, value in healthcare, community goals and fairness, while respecting the principles of benevolence, non-maleficence, autonomy and justice. We discuss the priority health interventions across the cancer continuum, giving a perspective on the role and meaning to maintain some services (undeferrable) while temporarily abrogate some others (deferrable). Considerations for implementation and the essential link to pre-existing health services, especially primary healthcare, are addressed, outlining a framework for the development of effective and functional services, such as telemedicine. The discussion covers the theme of health systems strategising, and why oncology care, in particular breast cancer care, should be maintained in parallel to pandemic control measures, providing a pragmatic clinical model within the broader context of public healthcare schemes

Adjuvant hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy in patients with locally advanced colon cancer (COLOPEC): a multicentre, open-label, randomised trial

Background: Nearly a quarter of patients with locally advanced (T4 stage) or perforated colon cancer are at risk of developing peritoneal metastases, often without curative treatment options. We aimed to determine the efficacy of adjuvant hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) in patients with locally advanced colon cancer. Methods: This multicentre, open-label trial was done in nine hospitals that specialised in HIPEC in the Netherlands. Patients with clinical or pathological T4N0–2M0-stage tumours or perforated colon cancer were randomly assigned (1:1), with a web-based randomisation application, before resection of the primary tumour, to adjuvant HIPEC followed by routine adjuvant systemic chemotherapy (experimental group) or to adjuvant systemic chemotherapy alone (control group). Patients were stratified by tumour characteristic (T4 or perforation), age (<65 years or ≥65 years), and surgical approach of the primary tumour resection (laparoscopic or open). Key eligibility criteria included age between 18 and 75 years, adequate clinical condition for HIPEC, and intention to start adjuvant systemic chemotherapy. Patients with metastatic disease were ineligible. Adjuvant HIPEC consisted of fluorouracil (400 mg/m2) and leucovorin (20 mg/m2) delivered intravenously followed by intraperitoneal delivery of oxaliplatin (460 mg/m2) for 30 min at 42°C, delivered simultaneously or within 5–8 weeks after primary tumour resection. In all patients without evidence of recurrent disease at 18 months, a diagnostic laparoscopy was done. The primary endpoint was peritoneal metastasis free-survival at 18 months, measured in the intention-to-treat population, with the Kaplan-Meier method. Adverse events were assessed in all patients who received assigned treatment. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02231086. Findings: Between April 1, 2015, and Feb 20, 2017, 204 patients were randomly assigned to treatment (102 in each group). In the HIPEC group, two patients withdrew consent after randomisation. In this group, 19 (19%) of 100 patients were diagnosed with peritoneal metastases: nine (47%) during surgical exploration preceding intentional adjuvant HIPEC, eight (42%) during routine follow-up, and two (11%) during diagnostic laparoscopy at 18-months. In the control group, 23 (23%) of 102 patients were diagnosed with peritoneal metastases, of whom seven (30%) were diagnosed by laparoscopy at 18-months and 16 during regular follow-up (therefore making them ineligible for diagnostic laparoscopy). In the intention-to-treat analysis (n=202), there was no difference in peritoneal-free survival at 18-months (80·9% [95% CI 73·3–88·5] for the experimental group vs 76·2% [68·0–84·4] for the control group, log-rank one-sided p=0·28). 12 (14%) of 87 patients who received adjuvant HIPEC developed postoperative complications and one (1%) encapsulating peritoneal sclerosis. Interpretation: In patients with T4 or perforated colon cancer, treatment with adjuvant HIPEC with oxaliplatin did not improve peritoneal metastasis-free survival at 18 months. Routine use of adjuvant HIPEC is not advocated on the basis of this trial. Funding: Organization for Health Research and Development and the Dutch Cancer Society