Search

70 Background: Most gastric cancer patients present with advanced stage disease precluding curative surgical treatment. The utility of surgical and non-surgical options for non-curative, advanced disease is debated and the appropriate treatment strategy unclear. Methods: A multi-disciplinary expert panel of 16 physicians from 6 countries, scored 47 scenarios using the RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Methodology. Appropriateness was scored from 1 (highly inappropriate) to 9 (highly appropriate). Median appropriateness scores (AS) from 1-3 were considered inappropriate, 4-6 uncertain, and 7-9, appropriate. Agreement was reached when 11 of 16 panelists scored the statement similarly. If a statement was agreed to be appropriate, it was then given a necessity score (NS) in the same manner. Results: Surgical resection and bypass were agreed to be inappropriate in patients with minor symptoms and visible carcinomatosis, liver metastases or more than one site of metastatic disease for cardia and distal lesions (AS 1.0-3.5). The expert panel disagreed on the role for surgical resection in patients who were cytology positive only (AS 4-6). The role of resection for patients with major symptoms if they had visible carcinomatosis, liver metastases or more than one site of metastatic disease (AS 2-5) was indeterminate. Patients with distal tumours and major symptoms and multiple liver metastases or more than one site of metastatic disease were considered indeterminate for surgical resection (AS 2). Best supportive care was agreed to be appropriate for patients with minor symptoms and multiple liver metastases or more than one site of metastatic disease (AS 8, NS 5-6). Conclusions: The role of surgery in metastatic gastric cancer treatment decision-making is not supported by experts for the majority of scenarios. Continued uncertainty in appropriate and necessary treatment decision-making for advanced patients with a minimal burden metastatic disease exists and underscores the need for randomized controlled trials.

104 Background: Processes of care in curative therapy for gastric cancer are ill-defined, have significant variations and may impact patient outcomes. Methods: A multi-disciplinary expert panel (16 physicians, 6 countries) scored 595 scenarios using the RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Methodology. Appropriateness was scored from 1 (highly inappropriate) to 9 (highly appropriate). Median appropriateness scores from 1-3 were considered inappropriate, 4-6 uncertain, and 7-9 appropriate. Agreement was reached when 11 of 16 panelists scored the statement similarly. If a statement was agreed to be appropriate, it was given a necessity score in the same manner. Results: Open gastrectomy was considered appropriate for all patients and necessary for patients with N2-3 disease, while laparoscopic gastrectomy was appropriate for patients with T1-2 N0 disease. D1 lymph node dissection (LND) was considered appropriate for T1 N0 disease. For all others, D2 LND was considered appropriate and necessary. It was appropriate to assess at least 15 LN. Intraoperative pathologic assessment of the proximal margin was considered appropriate for gross margins Conclusions: The above criteria have been found to be appropriate and necessary for the curative treatment of patients with gastric cancer and may be used to improve processes and quality of care.