Zuhaib M. Mir1, David Yu1, Shaila J. Merchant1, Christopher M. Booth1, Sunil V. Patel1. 1. From the Department of Surgery, Queen’s University, Kingston Health Sciences Centre, Kingston, Ont. (Mir, Yu, Merchant, Patel); and the Department of Oncology, Queen’s University, Kingston, Ont. (Booth).
Abstract
Background: Rectal cancer requires a multidisciplinary and multimodality treatment approach. Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) provide a framework for delivering consistent, evidence-based health care. We compared provincial/territorial CPGs across Canada to identify areas of variability and evaluate their quality. Methods: We retrieved CPGs from Canadian organizations responsible for cancer care oversight and evaluated their quality and developmental methodology using the AGREE-II instrument. Recommendations for diagnostic and staging investigations, treatment by stage, and post-treatment surveillance of stage I–III rectal cancers were abstracted and compared. Results: We identified 7 sets of CPGs for analysis, varying in content, presentation, quality, and year last updated. Differences were noted in locoregional staging: 4 recommended magnetic resonance imaging over endorectal ultrasonography, 2 recommended either modality, and 3 specified scenarios for one over the other. Recommendations also varied for use of staging computed tomography of the chest versus chest radiography and for surgical management and indications for transanal excision. Recommendations for neoadjuvant therapy in stage II/III disease also differed: 3 guidelines recommended long-course chemoradiation over short-course radiation therapy alone, while 3 others recommended short-course radiation in specific clinical scenarios. Adjuvant chemotherapy for stage II/III disease was uniformly recommended, with variable protocols. The use of proctosigmoidoscopy and interval/duration of endoscopic post-treatment surveillance varied among guidelines. Conclusion: Canadian CPGs vary in their recommendations for staging, treatment, and surveillance of rectal cancer. Some of these differences reflect areas with limited definitive evidence. Consistent guidelines with uniform implementation across provinces/territories may lead to more equitable care to patients.
Background: Rectal cancer requires a multidisciplinary and multimodality treatment approach. Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) provide a framework for delivering consistent, evidence-based health care. We compared provincial/territorial CPGs across Canada to identify areas of variability and evaluate their quality. Methods: We retrieved CPGs from Canadian organizations responsible for cancer care oversight and evaluated their quality and developmental methodology using the AGREE-II instrument. Recommendations for diagnostic and staging investigations, treatment by stage, and post-treatment surveillance of stage I–III rectal cancers were abstracted and compared. Results: We identified 7 sets of CPGs for analysis, varying in content, presentation, quality, and year last updated. Differences were noted in locoregional staging: 4 recommended magnetic resonance imaging over endorectal ultrasonography, 2 recommended either modality, and 3 specified scenarios for one over the other. Recommendations also varied for use of staging computed tomography of the chest versus chest radiography and for surgical management and indications for transanal excision. Recommendations for neoadjuvant therapy in stage II/III disease also differed: 3 guidelines recommended long-course chemoradiation over short-course radiation therapy alone, while 3 others recommended short-course radiation in specific clinical scenarios. Adjuvant chemotherapy for stage II/III disease was uniformly recommended, with variable protocols. The use of proctosigmoidoscopy and interval/duration of endoscopic post-treatment surveillance varied among guidelines. Conclusion: Canadian CPGs vary in their recommendations for staging, treatment, and surveillance of rectal cancer. Some of these differences reflect areas with limited definitive evidence. Consistent guidelines with uniform implementation across provinces/territories may lead to more equitable care to patients.
Authors: Lisette M Wiltink; Remi A Nout; Jochem R N van der Voort van Zyp; Heleen M Ceha; Marta Fiocco; Elma Meershoek-Klein Kranenbarg; Andreas W K S Marinelli; Cornelis J H van de Velde; Corrie A M Marijnen Journal: Clin Colorectal Cancer Date: 2016-02-13 Impact factor: 4.481
Authors: Zaid M Abdelsattar; Bradley N Reames; Scott E Regenbogen; Samantha Hendren; Sandra L Wong Journal: Cancer Date: 2014-11-06 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Wiebke Hoffmann-Eßer; Ulrich Siering; Edmund A M Neugebauer; Anne Catharina Brockhaus; Ulrike Lampert; Michaela Eikermann Journal: PLoS One Date: 2017-03-30 Impact factor: 3.240