Search

Simple Summary: Colorectal cancer remains a prevalent neoplasm affecting both genders. Despite advancements in screening techniques facilitating early detection, effective patient management remains paramount. This study investigates the impact of a multidisciplinary team (MDT) approach on patient outcomes. Results reveal a significant improvement in survival rates among MDT-followed patients compared to those lacking MDT oversight. Notably, no-MDT patients exhibited a twofold increase in mortality risk from both colon and rectal cancers. Furthermore, advanced age (>70 years) and advanced-stage disease (III and IV) emerged as pivotal risk factors. Consequently, prioritizing MDT intervention for these high-risk cohorts is imperative to optimize therapeutic strategies. Colorectal cancer emerged as the third most prevalent malignancy worldwide, affecting nearly 2 million individuals in the year 2020. This study elucidates the pivotal role of a multidisciplinary team (MDT) in influencing the prognosis, as measured by relative survival rates, depending upon the stage and age. Cases recorded in an Italian Cancer Registry between 2017 and 2018 were included. Relative survival was reported at 1 and 3 years after diagnosis comparing MDT vs. no-MDT approaches. During the study period, 605 CRCs were recorded while 361 (59.7%) were taken care of by an MDT. Compared to no-MDT, MDT patients were younger with earlier stages and received more surgery. One year after diagnosis, survival was 78.7% (90% in MDT vs. 62% in no-MDT); stratifying by stage, in the MDT group there was no survival advantage for stage I (97.2% vs. 89.9%) and II (96.8% vs. 89.4%), but an advantage was observed for stage III (86.4% vs. 56.9%) and stage IV (63.7% vs. 27.4%). Similar values were observed at 3 years where a marked advantage was observed for stages III (69.9% vs. 35.1%) and IV (29.2% vs. 5.1%). The univariable analysis confirmed an excess risk in the no-MDT group (HR 2.6; 95% CI 2.0–3.3), also confirmed in the multivariable regression analysis (HR 2.0; 95% CI 1.5–2.5). Despite the increase in the number of MDT patients in 2018 (from 50% to 69%), this does not correspond to an improvement in outcome. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Simple Summary: Diffuse liver diseases have a high incidence among the general population and even higher in patients with a solid cancer. Since many patients with a solid tumor die of liver metastases, the aim of this systematic review of the literature was to explore the correlation between diffuse liver diseases and the risk of having liver metastases at diagnosis or during follow-up. To summarize the results of included studies, a meta-analysis was also conducted. The results of our systematic review should encourage the research community to further investigate the complex relationship between the liver's microscopic environment and metastases, which may also affect prognosis and response to therapy. This systematic review with meta-analysis aimed to assess the effect of diffuse liver diseases (DLD) on the risk of synchronous (S-) or metachronous (M-) liver metastases (LMs) in patients with solid neoplasms. Relevant databases were searched for systematic reviews and cross-sectional or cohort studies published since 1990 comparing the risk of LMs in patients with and without DLD (steatosis, viral hepatitis, cirrhosis, fibrosis) in non-liver solid cancer patients. Outcomes were prevalence of S-LMs, cumulative risk of M-LMs and LM-free survival. Risk of bias (ROB) was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. We report the pooled relative risks (RR) for S-LMs and hazard ratios (HR) for M-LMs. Subgroup analyses included DLD, primary site and continent. Nineteen studies were included (n = 37,591 patients), the majority on colorectal cancer. ROB appraisal results were mixed. Patients with DLD had a lower risk of S-LMs (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.34–0.76), with a higher effect for cirrhosis and a slightly higher risk of M-LMs (HR 1.11 95% CI, 1.03–1.19), despite a lower risk of M-LMs in patients with vs without viral hepatitis (HR 0.57, 95% CI 0.40–0.82). There may have been a publication bias in favor of studies reporting a lower risk for patients with DLD. DLD are protective against S-LMs and slightly protective against M-LMs for viral hepatitis only. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]