BACKGROUND: Management of rectal cancer has become increasingly complex and a multidisciplinary approach is considered of key importance for improving outcomes. A national survey among specialists involved in this multidisciplinary setting was performed. METHODS: A web-based survey containing 11 questions regarding rectal cancer management was sent to surgeons and medical oncologists registered by their corresponding societies as members. Statistical analysis was performed using the chi-square and Fisher's exact tests for all categorical variables according to response to individual questions. Multivariate analysis was performed using Cox's logistic regression. RESULTS: Overall, 418 email recipients responded the survey. Local staging was performed without either magnetic resonance imaging or endorectal ultrasound by 64% of responders. Seventy-two percent considered that final management decision should be made after neoadjuvant chemoradiation therapy. Additionally, 46% considered that an alternative procedure (local excision or observation) was appropriate in a patient with a complete clinical response. Colorectal surgeons were more frequently in favor of longer intervals after completion of chemoradiation therapy (P = 0.001) and of alternative management procedures after a complete clinical response (P = 0.02). After multivariate analysis, the choice of a watch and wait approach after a complete clinical response following neoadjuvant chemoradiation therapy was significantly more frequent among surgeons (OR 3.5, 95% CI 1.8-7.1). CONCLUSIONS: Surgeons seem to be more in favor of tailoring management of rectal cancer according to tumor response after neoadjuvant chemoradiation therapy, with longer intervals after chemoradiation therapy, decisions about treatment strategy being made after chemoradiation therapy instead of before, and the use of alternative surgical procedures after a complete clinical response following neoadjuvant therapy.
BACKGROUND: Management of rectal cancer has become increasingly complex and a multidisciplinary approach is considered of key importance for improving outcomes. A national survey among specialists involved in this multidisciplinary setting was performed. METHODS: A web-based survey containing 11 questions regarding rectal cancer management was sent to surgeons and medical oncologists registered by their corresponding societies as members. Statistical analysis was performed using the chi-square and Fisher's exact tests for all categorical variables according to response to individual questions. Multivariate analysis was performed using Cox's logistic regression. RESULTS: Overall, 418 email recipients responded the survey. Local staging was performed without either magnetic resonance imaging or endorectal ultrasound by 64% of responders. Seventy-two percent considered that final management decision should be made after neoadjuvant chemoradiation therapy. Additionally, 46% considered that an alternative procedure (local excision or observation) was appropriate in a patient with a complete clinical response. Colorectal surgeons were more frequently in favor of longer intervals after completion of chemoradiation therapy (P = 0.001) and of alternative management procedures after a complete clinical response (P = 0.02). After multivariate analysis, the choice of a watch and wait approach after a complete clinical response following neoadjuvant chemoradiation therapy was significantly more frequent among surgeons (OR 3.5, 95% CI 1.8-7.1). CONCLUSIONS: Surgeons seem to be more in favor of tailoring management of rectal cancer according to tumor response after neoadjuvant chemoradiation therapy, with longer intervals after chemoradiation therapy, decisions about treatment strategy being made after chemoradiation therapy instead of before, and the use of alternative surgical procedures after a complete clinical response following neoadjuvant therapy.
Authors: Iris D Nagtegaal; Cornelius J H van de Velde; Corrie A M Marijnen; Jan H J M van Krieken; Philip Quirke Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2005-12-20 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Jose G Guillem; David B Chessin; Alfred M Cohen; Jinru Shia; Madhu Mazumdar; Warren Enker; Philip B Paty; Martin R Weiser; David Klimstra; Leonard Saltz; Bruce D Minsky; W Douglas Wong Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2005-05 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Joe J Tjandra; John W Kilkenny; W Donald Buie; Neil Hyman; Clifford Simmang; Thomas Anthony; Charles Orsay; James Church; Daniel Otchy; Jeffrey Cohen; Ronald Place; Frederick Denstman; Jan Rakinic; Richard Moore; Mark Whiteford Journal: Dis Colon Rectum Date: 2005-03 Impact factor: 4.585
Authors: E A Zerhouni; C Rutter; S R Hamilton; D M Balfe; A J Megibow; I R Francis; A A Moss; J P Heiken; C M Tempany; A M Aisen; J C Weinreb; C Gatsonis; B J McNeil Journal: Radiology Date: 1996-08 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Stephanie Nougaret; Hebert Alberto Vargas; Yulia Lakhman; Romain Sudre; Richard K G Do; Frederic Bibeau; David Azria; Eric Assenat; Nicolas Molinari; Marie-Ange Pierredon; Philippe Rouanet; Boris Guiu Journal: Radiology Date: 2016-02-26 Impact factor: 11.105