Search

Introduction: Various options for axillary staging after neoadjuvant systemic therapy (NST) are available for breast cancer patients with a clinically positive axillary node (cN+). This survey assessed current practices amongst breast cancer specialists., Materials and Methods: A survey was performed amongst members of the European Society of Surgical Oncology and two UK-based Associations: the Association of Breast Surgery and the British Association of Surgical Oncology. The survey included 3 parts: 1. general information, 2. diagnostic work-up and 3. axillary staging after NST., Results: A total of 310 responses were collected: parts 1, 2 and 3 were fully completed by 282 (91%), 270 (87.1%) and 225 (72.6%) respondents respectively. After NST, 153/267 (57.3%) respondents currently perform ALND routinely and 114 (42.7%) respondents perform less invasive restaging of the axilla with possible omission of ALND. In the latter group, 85% does and 15% does not use nodal response seen on imaging to guide the axillary restaging procedure. Regarding respondents that do use imaging: 95% would perform a less invasive staging procedure in case of complete nodal response on imaging (63% sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB), excision of a previously marked positive node with SLNB (21%) and without SLNB (11%)). In case of no nodal response on imaging 77% would perform ALND., Conclusion: Current axillary staging and management practices in cN + patients after NST vary widely. To determine optimal axillary staging and management in terms of quality of life and oncologic safety, breast specialists are encouraged to include patients in clinical trials/prospective registries., (Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Ltd, BASO ~ The Association for Cancer Surgery, and the European Society of Surgical Oncology. All rights reserved.)

Background: Despite guideline recommendations, reports suggest that a proportion of patients with hormone receptor (HR)-positive locally advanced or metastatic breast cancer (LA/MBC) might not receive endocrine therapy. The aims of this study were to estimate the proportion of postmenopausal patients with an initial (primary) diagnosis of HR-positive LA/MBC in Europe, and to assess the administration of endocrine treatment in these patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Fourteen national and regional cancer registries across Europe were invited to participate in this observational study. Six registries each provided anonymized clinical information on > 5000 postmenopausal women with breast cancer diagnosed between January 2000 and December 2014, including age at diagnosis, estrogen and/or progesterone receptor status, disease stage, and receipt of endocrine therapy. The proportion of patients with an initial diagnosis of HR-positive LA/MBC and, of these, the proportion who received endocrine therapy, was calculated., Results: Registries from Belgium, England, Ireland, Norway, The Netherlands, and Munich, Germany provided data. In total, 316,680 postmenopausal women were diagnosed with breast cancer, including 244,268 with known HR status and disease stage. Of these patients, 19,002 (7.8%) had a primary diagnosis of HR-positive LA/MBC. This proportion ranged from 5.4% (N = 4484) in England to 12.7% (N = 4085) in Germany. Most of these patients (n = 14,157; 74.5%) received endocrine treatment, ranging from 55.5% (n = 445) in Norway to 88.1% (n = 443) in Belgium., Conclusion: These results indicate that a sizeable proportion of postmenopausal patients in Europe received a primary diagnosis of HR-positive LA/MBC, and that almost three-quarters received subsequent endocrine therapy as per guideline recommendations., (Copyright © 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Older patients are poorly represented in breast cancer research and guidelines do not provide evidence based recommendations for this specific group. We compared treatment strategies and survival outcomes between European countries and assessed whether variance in treatment patterns may be associated with variation in survival., Methods: Population-based study including patients aged ≥ 70 with non-metastatic BC from cancer registries from the Netherlands, Belgium, Ireland, England and Greater Poland. Proportions of local and systemic treatments, five-year relative survival and relative excess risks (RER) between countries were calculated., Results: In total, 236,015 patients were included. The proportion of stage I BC receiving endocrine therapy ranged from 19.6% (Netherlands) to 84.6% (Belgium). The proportion of stage III BC receiving no breast surgery varied between 22.0% (Belgium) and 50.8% (Ireland). For stage I BC, relative survival was lower in England compared with Belgium (RER 2.96, 95%CI 1.30-6.72, P < .001). For stage III BC, England, Ireland and Greater Poland showed significantly worse relative survival compared with Belgium., Conclusions: There is substantial variation in treatment strategies and survival outcomes in elderly with BC in Europe. For early-stage BC, we observed large variation in endocrine therapy but no variation in relative survival, suggesting potential overtreatment. For advanced BC, we observed higher survival in countries with lower proportions of omission of surgery, suggesting potential undertreatment.

Objective: The aim of this study is to assess age-specific compliance to quality indicators (QIs) regarding the treatment of breast cancer as defined by European Society of Breast Cancer Specialists (EUSOMA) for patients across Europe., Methods: All patients entered into this study were affected by in situ or invasive breast cancer, diagnosed and treated between 2003 and 2012 at 27 Breast Units across Europe, who were entered into the EUSOMA database. Patients were categorised according to age; compliance to thirteen QIs was assessed for each age group and per time period (2003-2007 and 2008-2012). Compliance to QIs was tested by multivariable logistic regression models adjusted for breast unit, incidence year and tumour characteristics., Results: Overall, 41,871 patients with a mean age of 59.6years were available for analysis. The highest compliance was reached for patients aged 55-64years and in the time period 2008-2012, whilst the lowest compliance was observed for women aged over 74 or under 40years and in the earlier time period. In multivariable logistic regression models, a significant difference between age categories was shown for 12 out of 13 QIs (P<0.001). Compliance to the QIs for patients aged ⩾75years was significantly lower when compared to patients aged 55-64years for ten QIs, whilst for patients in the youngest age group this was true for seven QIs., Conclusion: In conclusion, we found that among the 27 included breast units across Europe, compliance to QIs for breast cancer treatment is often lower in the youngest and oldest breast cancer patients, with a tendency to overtreatment in the youngest patients, and to under-treatment in the elderly., (Copyright © 2015. Published by Elsevier Ltd.)

Colorectal cancer is one of the most common cancers in Europe. Over the past few decades, important advances have been made in screening, staging and treatment of colorectal cancer. However, considerable variation between and within European countries remains, which implies that further improvements are possible. The most important remaining question now is: when are we, health care professionals, delivering the best available care to patients with colon or rectal cancer? Currently, quality assurance is a major issue in colorectal cancer care and quality assurance awareness is developing in almost all disciplines involved in the treatment of colorectal cancer patients. Quality assurance has shown to be effective in clinical trials. For example, standardisation and quality control were introduced in the Dutch TME trial and led to marked improvements of local control and survival in rectal cancer patients. Besides, audit structures can also be very effective in monitoring cancer management and national audits showed to further improve outcome in colorectal cancer patients. To reduce the differences between European countries, an international, multidisciplinary, outcome-based quality improvement programme, European Registration of Cancer Care (EURECCA), has been initiated. In the near future, the EURECCA dataset will perform research on subgroups as elderly patients or patients with comorbidities, which are often excluded from trials. For optimal colorectal cancer care, quality assurance in guideline formation and in multidisciplinary team management is also of great importance. The aim of this review was to create greater awareness and to give an overview of quality assurance in the management of colorectal cancer., (© The Author 2014. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society for Medical Oncology. All rights reserved. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

The first multidisciplinary consensus conference on colon and rectal cancer was held in December 2012, achieving a majority of consensus for diagnostic and treatment decisions using the Delphi Method. This article will give a critical appraisal of the topics discussed during the meeting and in the consensus document by well-known leaders in surgery that were involved in this multidisciplinary consensus process. Scientific evidence, experience and opinions are collected to support multidisciplinary teams (MDT) with arguments for medical decision-making in diagnosis, staging and treatment strategies for patients with colon or rectal cancer. Surgery is the cornerstone of curative treatment for colon and rectal cancer. Standardizing treatment is an effective instrument to improve outcome of multidisciplinary cancer care for patients with colon and rectal cancer. In this article, a review of the following focuses; Perioperative care, age and colorectal surgery, obstructive colorectal cancer, stenting, surgical anatomical considerations, total mesorectal excision (TME) surgery and training, surgical considerations for locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC) and local recurrent rectal cancer (LRRC), surgery in stage IV colorectal cancer, definitions of quality of surgery, transanal endoscopic microsurgery (TEM), laparoscopic colon and rectal surgery, preoperative radiotherapy and chemoradiotherapy, and how about functional outcome after surgery?, (Copyright © 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Context: High-quality cancer care should be accessible for patients and healthcare professionals. Involvement of patients as partners in guideline formation and consensus processes is still rarely found. EURECCA, short for European Registration of Cancer Care, is the platform to improve outcomes of cancer care by reducing variation in the diagnostic and treatment process. EURECCA acknowledges the important role of patients in implementation of consensus information in clinical practice., Objective: The aim of this article is to describe the process of involving patients in the consensus process and in developing the patient summary of the consensus for colon and rectal cancer care., Methods: The Delphi method for achieving consensus was used. Three online voting rounds and one tele-voting round were offered to an expert panel of oncology professionals and patient representatives. At four different stages, patients and/or patient representatives were involved in the process: (1) during the consensus process, (2) lecturing about the role of the patient, (3) development of the patient summary, and (4) testing the patient summary., Results: Representatives were invited to the voting and commenting rounds of this process and given an equal vote. Although patients were not consulted during the planning stages of this process, patient involvement increased following the panel's discussion of the implementation of the consensus among the patient population. After the consensus meeting, the patient summary was written by patient representatives, oncologists and nurses. A selection of proactive patients reviewed the draft patient summary; responses were positive and several patient-reported outcomes were added. Questionnaires to evaluate the use and implementation of the patient summary in daily practice are currently being developed and tested. Patient consultation will be needed in future planning for selection of topics., Discussion: The present study may function as a model for future consensus processes to involve patients at different stages and to implement both patient and healthcare professional versions in daily practice.

Background: Care for patients with colon and rectal cancer has improved in the last 20years; however considerable variation still exists in cancer management and outcome between European countries. Large variation is also apparent between national guidelines and patterns of cancer care in Europe. Therefore, EURECCA, which is the acronym of European Registration of Cancer Care, is aiming at defining core treatment strategies and developing a European audit structure in order to improve the quality of care for all patients with colon and rectal cancer. In December 2012, the first multidisciplinary consensus conference about cancer of the colon and rectum was held. The expert panel consisted of representatives of European scientific organisations involved in cancer care of patients with colon and rectal cancer and representatives of national colorectal registries., Methods: The expert panel had delegates of the European Society of Surgical Oncology (ESSO), European Society for Radiotherapy & Oncology (ESTRO), European Society of Pathology (ESP), European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO), European Society of Radiology (ESR), European Society of Coloproctology (ESCP), European CanCer Organisation (ECCO), European Oncology Nursing Society (EONS) and the European Colorectal Cancer Patient Organisation (EuropaColon), as well as delegates from national registries or audits. Consensus was achieved using the Delphi method. For the Delphi process, multidisciplinary experts were invited to comment and vote three web-based online voting rounds and to lecture on the subjects during the meeting (13th-15th December 2012). The sentences in the consensus document were available during the meeting and a televoting round during the conference by all participants was performed. This manuscript covers all sentences of the consensus document with the result of the voting. The consensus document represents sections on diagnostics, pathology, surgery, medical oncology, radiotherapy, and follow-up where applicable for treatment of colon cancer, rectal cancer and metastatic colorectal disease separately. Moreover, evidence based algorithms for diagnostics and treatment were composed which were also submitted to the Delphi process., Results: The total number of the voted sentences was 465. All chapters were voted on by at least 75% of the experts. Of the 465 sentences, 84% achieved large consensus, 6% achieved moderate consensus, and 7% resulted in minimum consensus. Only 3% was disagreed by more than 50% of the members., Conclusions: Multidisciplinary consensus on key diagnostic and treatment issues for colon and rectal cancer management using the Delphi method was successful. This consensus document embodies the expertise of professionals from all disciplines involved in the care for patients with colon and rectal cancer. Diagnostic and treatment algorithms were developed to implement the current evidence and to define core treatment guidance for multidisciplinary team management of colon and rectal cancer throughout Europe., (Copyright © 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Care for patients with colon and rectal cancer has improved in the last twenty years however still considerable variation exists in cancer management and outcome between European countries. Therefore, EURECCA, which is the acronym of European Registration of cancer care, is aiming at defining core treatment strategies and developing a European audit structure in order to improve the quality of care for all patients with colon and rectal cancer. In December 2012 the first multidisciplinary consensus conference about colon and rectum was held looking for multidisciplinary consensus. The expert panel consisted of representatives of European scientific organisations involved in cancer care of patients with colon and rectal cancer and representatives of national colorectal registries., Methods: The expert panel had delegates of the European Society of Surgical Oncology (ESSO), European Society for Radiotherapy & Oncology (ESTRO), European Society of Pathology (ESP), European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO), European Society of Radiology (ESR), European Society of Coloproctology (ESCP), European CanCer Organisation (ECCO), European Oncology Nursing Society (EONS) and the European Colorectal Cancer Patient Organisation (EuropaColon), as well as delegates from national registries or audits. Experts commented and voted on the two web-based online voting rounds before the meeting (between 4th and 25th October and between the 20th November and 3rd December 2012) as well as one online round after the meeting (4th-20th March 2013) and were invited to lecture on the subjects during the meeting (13th-15th December 2012). The sentences in the consensus document were available during the meeting and a televoting round during the conference by all participants was performed. All sentences that were voted on are available on the EURECCA website www.canceraudit.eu. The consensus document was divided in sections describing evidence based algorithms of diagnostics, pathology, surgery, medical oncology, radiotherapy, and follow-up where applicable for treatment of colon cancer, rectal cancer and stage IV separately. Consensus was achieved using the Delphi method., Results: The total number of the voted sentences was 465. All chapters were voted on by at least 75% of the experts. Of the 465 sentences, 84% achieved large consensus, 6% achieved moderate consensus, and 7% resulted in minimum consensus. Only 3% was disagreed by more than 50% of the members., Conclusions: It is feasible to achieve European Consensus on key diagnostic and treatment issues using the Delphi method. This consensus embodies the expertise of professionals from all disciplines involved in the care for patients with colon and rectal cancer. Diagnostic and treatment algorithms were developed to implement the current evidence and to define core treatment guidance for multidisciplinary team management of colon and rectal cancer throughout Europe., (Copyright © 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)