Diagnostic Nodes of Patient Selection for Cytoreductive Surgery and Hyperthermic Intraperitoneal Chemotherapy Among Colorectal Cancer Patients: A Swiss National Multicenter Survey.

The management of patients with colorectal cancer (CRC) with peritoneal metastases is challenging, and the roles of cytoreductive surgery (CRS) and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) are unclear and debated among experts. The experts of the Swiss Peritoneal Cancer Group were contacted and agreed to participate in this analysis. Experts from 9 centers in Switzerland provided their decision algorithms for CRS/HIPEC for patients with or at high risk for peritoneal metastases from CRC. Their responses were converted into decision trees on the basis of objective consensus methodology. The decision trees were used as a basis to identify consensus and discrepancies. The final treatment algorithms included a total of 5 decision criteria (age, Peritoneal Cancer Index [PCI], extraperitoneal metastases, Peritoneal Surface Disease Severity Score, and various risk factors [RF]) and 2 treatment options (HIPEC, yes or no). HIPEC was never recommended for patients without peritoneal metastases in the absence of RF for peritoneal metastases. For patients with a PCI ≤15 without organ metastases, all centers recommended CRS/HIPEC. There was also a consensus not to perform CRS/HIPEC in elderly patients (80 years and older), those with a PCI >20, and those with unresectable metastases. For patients with a PCI = 16 to 20, there was no consensus. Multiple decision criteria relevant to all participating centers were identified. Because patient selection for CRS/HIPEC remains difficult, uniform criteria for the term "high risk" for peritoneal metastases and systemic metastases are helpful. Future trials and guidelines should take these criteria into account

Oesophageal cancer: Exploring controversies overview of experts' opinions of Austria, Germany, France, Netherlands and Switzerland

Background: Oesophageal carcinoma is a rare disease with often dismal prognosis. Despite multiple trials addressing specific issues, currently, many questions in management remain unanswered. This work aimed to specifically address areas in the management of oesophageal cancer where high level evidence is not available, performing trials is very demanding and for many questions high-level evidence will not be available in the forseeable future. Methods: Two experts of each national, oesophageal cancer research group from Austria, France, Germany, the Netherlands and Switzerland were asked to provide statements to controversial issues. After an initial survey, further questions were formulated and answered by all experts. The answers were then discussed and qualitatively analysed for consensus and controversy. Results: Topics such as indications for PET-CT, reasons for induction chemotherapy, radiotherapy dose, the choice of definitive chemo-radiotherapy versus surgery in squamous cell cancer, the role of radiotherapy in adenocarcinoma and selected surgical issues were identified as topics of interest and discussed. Conclusion: Areas of significant controversy exist in the management of oesophageal cancer, mostly due to high-level evidence. This is not expected to change in the upcoming years

Current efforts in research of pleural mesothelioma—An analysis of the ClinicalTrials.gov registry

Objectives: Currently there are many uncertainties in the optimal treatment of malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM), this is reflected in discrepancies between current guidelines. Our aim was to evaluate the current status of prospective interventional clinical trials within the ClinicalTrials.gov registry in MPM in order to predict a potential impact on MPM management in the next years. Material and Methods: The records of 263.832 clinical trials registered were searched in December 2017. Trials starting between 2005 and 2017 (n = 262) were selected for further manual review. Trials including other tumour entities or mesothelioma originating outside the pleura (n = 94) were excluded, as well as trials where the primary endpoint has already been published (n = 22). Results: In total, 91 clinical trials were identified and selected for further analysis. Most trials had a single arm design, were in phase I, and were non-randomized. Academic centres were recorded as primary sponsors in the majority of trials (56%), followed by industry in 21%. Most studies investigated targeted (n = 42) or cytotoxic therapies (n = 39). Ten studies investigated different genetic therapies. In 67% of the trials (n = 61) targeted and/or cytotoxic therapies were involved. Treatments involving surgery were investigated in 12 trials (13%), radiotherapy in 10 trials (11%). Only five studies (6%) were phase 3 studies and one was a phase 2/3 study. Four of these five phase 3 trials investigated targeted therapies, while one trial investigated prophylactic radiotherapy of operative tracts. Conclusions: Currently running trials in MPM are mostly in early phases and dominated by systemic therapies. Very few trials evaluate loco-regional therapeutic approaches. The current controversy surrounding the use of surgery and radiotherapy within multimodal therapy strategies will not be answered by these trials in the coming years.SCOPUS: ar.jinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishe

Impact of treatment decision algorithms on treatment costs in recurrent glioblastoma: a health economic study.

Recurrent glioblastoma (GBM) is a disease with poor prognosis. Although several therapeutic approaches such as chemotherapy, irradiation or surgery have been investigated, there is no established standard therapy. A recent survey among Swiss neuro-oncology centres has shown considerable controversy in the treatment recommendations for any specific scenario of recurrent GBM. In view of the cost differences of the available treatment alternatives, the aim of our study was assess the financial impact of different institutional therapeutic strategies for recurrent GBM in Switzerland. We created a decision analytic model for each of the eight centres participating in the initial study with a centre-specific treatment algorithm to evaluate the average treatment cost per patient. The probability of decision criteria was varied by univariate and probabilistic sensitivity analysis over a wide range to account for the high level of uncertainty. Treatment costs were calculated from the perspective of the Swiss healthcare payer. Mean treatment costs per patient calculated on the basis of the institutional treatment algorithms ranged from CHF 13,748 to CHF 22,072 depending on the probability of individual decision criteria. The most influential decision factors for the mean treatment costs were the probability of fit patients and the proportion of patients with resectable tumour recurrences. There was a significant correlation between the complexity of treatment algorithms in a centre and the resulting mean treatment costs. Institutional treatment algorithms can be used to estimate the average treatment costs per patient, which are, however, highly sensitive to probability changes of individual decision criteria. Our study demonstrates a high variability in treatment costs for recurrent GBM among eight Swiss neuro-oncology centres based on individual institutional treatment algorithms

First-line treatment of metastatic clear cell renal cell carcinoma: a decision-making analysis among experts.

BACKGROUND The treatment landscape of metastatic clear cell renal cell carcinoma (mccRCC) has been transformed by targeted therapies with tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKI) and more recently by the incorporation of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI). Today, a spectrum of single agent TKI to TKI/ICI and ICI/ICI combinations can be considered and the choice of the best regimen is complex. MATERIALS AND METHODS We performed an updated decision-making analysis among 11 international kidney cancer experts. Each expert provided their treatment strategy and relevant decision criteria in the first line treatment of mccRCC. After the collection of all input a list of unified decision criteria was determined and compatible decision trees were created. We used a methodology based on diagnostic nodes, which allows for an automated cross-comparison of decision trees, to determine the most common treatment recommendations as well as deviations. RESULTS Diverse parameters were considered relevant for treatment selection, various drugs and drug combinations were recommended by the experts. The parameters, chosen by the experts, were performance status, International Metastatic renal cell carcinoma Database Consortium (IMDC) risk group, PD-L1 status, zugzwang and contraindication to immunotherapy. The systemic therapies selected for first line treatment were sunitinib, pazopanib, tivozanib, cabozantinib, ipilimumab/nivolumab or pembrolizumab/axitinib. CONCLUSION A wide spectrum of treatment recommendations based on multiple decision criteria was demonstrated. Significant inter-expert variations were observed. This demonstrates how data from randomized trials are implemented differently when transferred into daily practice

A Review of Controversial Issues in the Management of Head and Neck Cancer: A Swiss Multidisciplinary and Multi-Institutional Patterns of Care Study-Part 2 (Radiation Oncology).

Background: The Head and Neck Cancer Working Group of Swiss Group for Clinical Cancer Research (SAKK) has investigated the level of consensus (LOC) and discrepancy in everyday practice of diagnosis and treatment in head and neck cancer. Materials and Methods: An online survey was iteratively generated with 10 Swiss university and teaching hospitals. LOC below 50% was defined as no agreement, while higher LOC were arbitrarily categorized as low (51-74%), moderate (75-84%), and high (≥85%). Results: Any LOC was achieved in 62% of topics (n = 60). High, moderate, and low LOC were found in 18, 20, and 23%, respectively. Regarding Head and Neck Surgery, Radiation Oncology, Medical Oncology, and biomarkers, LOC was achieved in 50, 57, 83, and 43%, respectively. Conclusions: Consensus on clinical topics is rather low for surgeons and radiation oncologists. The questions discussed might highlight discrepancies, stimulate standardization of practice, and prioritize topics for future clinical research

Supplementary Material for: Extraction of interoperable data from healthcare documents by identifying Common Data Elements: an analysis of Radiation Therapy Planning CT Physician Order Entry records

Introduction: Documentation as well as IT-based management of medical data is of ever-increasing relevance in modern medicine. As radiation oncology is a rather technical, data-driven discipline, standardization and data exchange are in principle possible. We examined electronic healthcare documents to extract structured information. Planning CT order entry documents were chosen for the analysis, as this covers a common and structured step in radiation oncology, for which standardized documentation may be achieved. Aim was to examine the extent to which relevant information may be exchanged among different institutions. Materials and Methods: We contacted representatives of nine radiation oncology departments. Departments using standardized electronic documentation for planning CT were asked to provide templates of their records, which were analyzed in terms of form and content. Structured information was extracted by identifying definite common data elements, containing explicit information. Relevant common data elements were identified and classified. A quantitative analysis was performed to evaluate the possibility of data exchange. Results: We received data of seven documents that were heterogeneous regarding form and content. 181 definite common data elements considered relevant for the planning CT were identified and assorted into five semantic groups. 139 data elements (76.8%) were present in only one document. The other 42 data elements were present in two to six documents, while none was shared among all seven documents. Conclusion: Structured and interoperable documentation of medical information can be achieved using common data elements. Our analysis showed that a lot of information recorded with healthcare documents can be presented with this approach. Yet, in the analyzed cohort of planning CT order entries, only a few common data elements were shared among the majority of documents. A common vocabulary and consensus upon relevant information is required to promote interoperability and standardization

Gemeinsamkeiten und Unterschiede der primären Radiotherapie beim lokalisierten und lokal fortgeschrittenen Prostatakarzinom in der Schweiz : Eine Analyse der der Behandlungskonzepte Consensus and differences in primary radiotherapy for localized and locally advanced prostate cancer in Switzerland : A survey on patterns of practice.

INTRODUCTION: External beam radiotherapy (EBRT), with or without androgen deprivation therapy (ADT), is an established treatment option for nonmetastatic prostate cancer. Despite high-level evidence from several randomized trials, risk group stratification and treatment recommendations vary due to contradictory or inconclusive data, particularly with regard to EBRT dose prescription and ADT duration. Our aim was to investigate current patterns of practice in primary EBRT for prostate cancer in Switzerland. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Treatment recommendations on EBRT and ADT for localized and locally advanced prostate cancer were collected from 23 Swiss radiation oncology centers. Written recommendations were converted into center-specific decision trees, and analyzed for consensus and differences using a dedicated software tool. Additionally, specific radiotherapy planning and delivery techniques from the participating centers were assessed. RESULTS: The most commonly prescribed radiation dose was 78 Gy (range 70-80 Gy) across all risk groups. ADT was recommended for intermediate-risk patients for 6 months in over 80 % of the centers, and for high-risk patients for 2 or 3 years in over 90 % of centers. For recommendations on combined EBRT and ADT treatment, consensus levels did not exceed 39 % in any clinical scenario. Arc-based intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) is implemented for routine prostate cancer radiotherapy by 96 % of the centers. CONCLUSION: Among Swiss radiation oncology centers, considerable ranges of radiotherapy dose and ADT duration are routinely offered for localized and locally advanced prostate cancer. In the vast majority of cases, doses and durations are within the range of those described in current evidence-based guidelines

A Review of Controversial Issues in the Management of Head and Neck Cancer: A Swiss Multidisciplinary and Multi-Institutional Patterns of Care Study-Part 3 (Medical Oncology).

Background: The Head and Neck Cancer Working Group of Swiss Group for Clinical Cancer Research (SAKK) has investigated the level of consensus (LOC) and discrepancy in everyday practice of diagnosis and treatment in head and neck cancer. Materials and Methods: An online survey was iteratively generated with 10 Swiss university and teaching hospitals. LOC below 50% was defined as no agreement, while higher LOC were arbitrarily categorized as low (51-74%), moderate (75-84%), and high (≥85%). Results: Any LOC was achieved in 62% of topics (n = 60). High, moderate, and low LOC were found in 18, 20, and 23%, respectively. Regarding Head and Neck Surgery, Radiation Oncology, Medical Oncology, and biomarkers, LOC was achieved in 50, 57, 83, and 43%, respectively. Conclusions: Consensus on clinical topics is rather low for surgeons and radiation oncologists. The questions discussed might highlight discrepancies, stimulate standardization of practice, and prioritize topics for future clinical research