R Vera1, M Salgado2, M J Safont3, J Gallego4, E González5, E Élez6, E Aranda7. 1. Medical Oncology Department, Complejo Hospitalario de Navarra, Pamplona, Spain. 2. Medical Oncology Department, Complejo Hospitalario Universitario de Ourense, Ourense, Spain. 3. Medical Oncology Department, Hospital General Universitario de Valencia, Valencia, Spain. 4. Medical Oncology Department, Hospital General Universitario de Elche, Alicante, Spain. 5. Medical Oncology Department, Hospital Universitario Virgen de las Nieves, Granada, Spain. 6. Vall d'Hebron Institute of Oncology, Barcelona, Spain. 7. Medical Oncology Department, Maimonides Institute of Biomedical Research (IMIBIC), Hospital Reina Sofía, University of Córdoba, Av. Menendez Pidal, s/n, 14004, Córdoba, Spain. earandaa@seom.org.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To provide guidance for the management of RAS wild-type (wt) metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) in daily practice. METHODS: Nominal group and Delphi techniques were used. A steering committee of seven experts analyzed the current management of RAS wt mCRC, through which they identified controversies, critically analyzed the available evidence, and formulated several guiding statements for clinicians. Subsequently, a group of 30 experts (the expert panel) was selected to test agreement with the statements, through two Delphi rounds. The following response categories were established in both rounds: 1 = totally agree, 2 = basically agree, 3 = basically disagree, 4 = totally disagree. Agreement was defined if ≥ 75% of answers were in categories 1 and 2 (consensus with the agreement) or 3 and 4 (consensus with the disagreement). RESULTS: Overall, 71 statements were proposed, which incorporated the following areas: (1) overarching principles; (2) tumor location; (3) triplets; (4) maintenance; (5) second-line and beyond treatments; (6) Rechallenge and liquid biopsy. After the two Delphi rounds, only six statements maintained a lack of clear consensus. CONCLUSIONS: This document aims to describe the expert's attitude when dealing with several common clinical questions regarding patients with RAS wt mCRC.
OBJECTIVE: To provide guidance for the management of RAS wild-type (wt) metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) in daily practice. METHODS: Nominal group and Delphi techniques were used. A steering committee of seven experts analyzed the current management of RAS wt mCRC, through which they identified controversies, critically analyzed the available evidence, and formulated several guiding statements for clinicians. Subsequently, a group of 30 experts (the expert panel) was selected to test agreement with the statements, through two Delphi rounds. The following response categories were established in both rounds: 1 = totally agree, 2 = basically agree, 3 = basically disagree, 4 = totally disagree. Agreement was defined if ≥ 75% of answers were in categories 1 and 2 (consensus with the agreement) or 3 and 4 (consensus with the disagreement). RESULTS: Overall, 71 statements were proposed, which incorporated the following areas: (1) overarching principles; (2) tumor location; (3) triplets; (4) maintenance; (5) second-line and beyond treatments; (6) Rechallenge and liquid biopsy. After the two Delphi rounds, only six statements maintained a lack of clear consensus. CONCLUSIONS: This document aims to describe the expert's attitude when dealing with several common clinical questions regarding patients with RAS wt mCRC.
Authors: Josep Tabernero; Takayuki Yoshino; Allen Lee Cohn; Radka Obermannova; Gyorgy Bodoky; Rocio Garcia-Carbonero; Tudor-Eliade Ciuleanu; David C Portnoy; Eric Van Cutsem; Axel Grothey; Jana Prausová; Pilar Garcia-Alfonso; Kentaro Yamazaki; Philip R Clingan; Sara Lonardi; Tae Won Kim; Lorinda Simms; Shao-Chun Chang; Federico Nasroulah Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2015-04-12 Impact factor: 41.316
Authors: Julian Walter Holch; Ingrid Ricard; Sebastian Stintzing; Dominik Paul Modest; Volker Heinemann Journal: Eur J Cancer Date: 2016-11-29 Impact factor: 9.162
Authors: Lieke H J Simkens; Harm van Tinteren; Anne May; Albert J ten Tije; Geert-Jan M Creemers; Olaf J L Loosveld; Felix E de Jongh; Frans L G Erdkamp; Zoran Erjavec; Adelheid M E van der Torren; Jolien Tol; Hans J J Braun; Peter Nieboer; Jacobus J M van der Hoeven; Janny G Haasjes; Rob L H Jansen; Jaap Wals; Annemieke Cats; Veerle A Derleyn; Aafke H Honkoop; Linda Mol; Cornelis J A Punt; Miriam Koopman Journal: Lancet Date: 2015-04-07 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Andrea Bertotti; Giorgia Migliardi; Francesco Galimi; Francesco Sassi; Davide Torti; Claudio Isella; Davide Corà; Federica Di Nicolantonio; Michela Buscarino; Consalvo Petti; Dario Ribero; Nadia Russolillo; Andrea Muratore; Paolo Massucco; Alberto Pisacane; Luca Molinaro; Emanuele Valtorta; Andrea Sartore-Bianchi; Mauro Risio; Lorenzo Capussotti; Marcello Gambacorta; Salvatore Siena; Enzo Medico; Anna Sapino; Silvia Marsoni; Paolo M Comoglio; Alberto Bardelli; Livio Trusolino Journal: Cancer Discov Date: 2011-09-02 Impact factor: 39.397
Authors: Marc Peeters; Frédéric Forget; Meinolf Karthaus; Manuel Valladares-Ayerbes; Alberto Zaniboni; Gaston Demonty; Xuesong Guan; Fernando Rivera Journal: ESMO Open Date: 2018-02-24
Authors: N Boeckx; R Koukakis; K Op de Beeck; C Rolfo; G Van Camp; S Siena; J Tabernero; J-Y Douillard; T André; M Peeters Journal: Ann Oncol Date: 2017-08-01 Impact factor: 32.976
Authors: R-D Hofheinz; U Ronellenfitsch; S Kubicka; A Falcone; I Burkholder; U T Hacker Journal: Gastroenterol Res Pract Date: 2016-08-30 Impact factor: 2.260