Search

Item does not contain fulltext, BACKGROUND: Local treatment improves the outcomes for oligometastatic disease (OMD, i.e. an intermediate state between locoregional and widespread disseminated disease). However, consensus about the definition, diagnosis and treatment of oligometastatic oesophagogastric cancer is lacking. The aim of this study was to develop a multidisciplinary European consensus statement on the definition, diagnosis and treatment of oligometastatic oesophagogastric cancer. METHODS: In total, 65 specialists in the multidisciplinary treatment for oesophagogastric cancer from 49 expert centres across 16 European countries were requested to participate in this Delphi study. The consensus finding process consisted of a starting meeting, 2 online Delphi questionnaire rounds and an online consensus meeting. Input for Delphi questionnaires consisted of (1) a systematic review on definitions of oligometastatic oesophagogastric cancer and (2) a discussion of real-life clinical cases by multidisciplinary teams. Experts were asked to score each statement on a 5-point Likert scale. The agreement was scored to be either absent/poor (<50%), fair (50%-75%) or consensus (≥75%). RESULTS: A total of 48 experts participated in the starting meeting, both Delphi rounds, and the consensus meeting (overall response rate: 71%). OMD was considered in patients with metastatic oesophagogastric cancer limited to 1 organ with ≤3 metastases or 1 extra-regional lymph node station (consensus). In addition, OMD was considered in patients without progression at restaging after systemic therapy (consensus). For patients with synchronous or metachronous OMD with a disease-free interval ≤2 years, systemic therapy followed by restaging to consider local treatment was considered as treatment (consensus). For metachronous OMD with a disease-free interval >2 years, either upfront local treatment or systemic treatment followed by restaging was considered as treatment (fair agreement). CONCLUSION: The OMEC project has resul

Item does not contain fulltext, BACKGROUND: Consensus about the definition and treatment of oligometastatic oesophagogastric cancer is lacking. OBJECTIVE: To assess the definition and treatment of oligometastatic oesophagogastric cancer across multidisciplinary tumour boards (MDTs) in Europe. MATERIAL AND METHODS: European expert centers (n = 49) were requested to discuss 15 real-life cases in their MDT with at least a medical, surgical, and radiation oncologist present. The cases varied in terms of location and number of metastases, histology, timing of detection (i.e. synchronous versus metachronous), primary tumour treatment status, and response to systemic therapy. The primary outcome was the agreement in the definition of oligometastatic disease at diagnosis and after systemic therapy. The secondary outcome was the agreement in treatment strategies. Treatment strategies for oligometastatic disease were categorised into upfront local treatment (i.e. metastasectomy or stereotactic radiotherapy), systemic therapy followed by restaging to consider local treatment or systemic therapy alone. The agreement across MDTs was scored to be either absent/poor (<50%), fair (50%-75%), or consensus (≥75%). RESULTS: A total of 47 MDTs across 16 countries fully discussed the cases (96%). Oligometastatic disease was considered in patients with 1-2 metastases in either the liver, lung, retroperitoneal lymph nodes, adrenal gland, soft tissue or bone (consensus). At follow-up, oligometastatic disease was considered after a median of 18 weeks of systemic therapy when no progression or progression in size only of the oligometastatic lesion(s) was seen (consensus). If at restaging after a median of 18 weeks of systemic therapy the number of lesions progressed, this was not considered as oligometastatic disease (fair agreement). There was no consensus on treatment strategies for oligometastatic disease. CONCLUSION: A broad consensus on definitions of oligometastatic oesophagogastric cancer was found among MDTs of oeso

Correction to: Strahlenther Onkol 2021 https://doi.org/10.1007/s00066-021-01812-2

Background and purpose: Prognosis after chemoradiotherapy (CRT) for anal squamous cell carcinoma (ASCC) shows marked differences among patients according to TNM subgroups, however individualized risk assessment tools to better stratify patients for treatment (de-) escalation or intensified follow-up are lacking in ASCC. Materials and methods: Patients’ data from eight sites of the German Cancer Consortium - Radiation Oncology Group (DKTK-ROG), comprising a total of 605 patients with ASCC, treated with standard defini- tive CRT with 5-FU/Mitomycin C or Capecitabine/Mitomycin C between 2004–2018, were used to evalu- ate prognostic factors based on Cox regression models for disease-free survival (DFS). Evaluated variables included age, gender, Karnofsky performance score (KPS), HIV-status, T-category, lymph node status and laboratory parameters. Multivariate cox models were separately constructed for the whole cohort and the subset of patients with early-stage (cT1-2 N0M0) tumors. Results: After a median follow-up of 46 months, 3-year DFS for patients with early-stage ASCC was 84.9%, and 67.1% for patients with locally-advanced disease (HR 2.4, p < 0.001). T-category (HR vs. T1: T2 2.02; T3 2.11; T4 3.03), N-category (HR versus N0: 1.8 for N1-3), age (HR 1.02 per year), and KPS (HR 0.8 per step) were significant predictors for DFS in multivariate analysis in the entire cohort. The model per- formed with a C-index of 0.68. In cT1-2N0 patients, T-category (HR 2.14), HIV status (HR 2.57), age (1.026 per year), KPS (HR 0.7 per step) and elevated platelets (HR 1.3 per 100/nl) were associated with worse DFS (C-index of 0.7). Conclusion: Classical clinicopathologic parameters like T-category, N-category, age and KPS remain to be significant prognostic factors for DFS in patients treated with contemporary CRT for ASCC. HIV and plate- lets were significantly associated with worse DFS in patients with early stage ASCC.

Multimodal treatment strategies for patients with rectal cancer are increasingly including the possibility of organ preservation, through nonoperative management or local excision. Organ preservation strategies can enable patients with a complete response or near-complete clinical responses after radiotherapy with or without concomitant chemotherapy to safely avoid the morbidities associated with radical surgery, and thus to maintain anorectal function and quality of life. However, standardization of the key outcome measures of organ preservation strategies is currently lacking; this includes a lack of consensus of the optimal definitions and selection of primary end points according to the trial phase and design; the optimal time points for response assessment; response-based decision-making; follow-up schedules; use of specific anorectal function tests; and quality of life and patient-reported outcomes. Thus, a consensus statement on outcome measures is necessary to ensure consistency and facilitate more accurate comparisons of data from ongoing and future trials. Here, we have convened an international group of experts with extensive experience in the management of patients with rectal cancer, including organ preservation approaches, and used a Delphi process to establish the first international consensus recommendations for key outcome measures of organ preservation, in an attempt to standardize the reporting of data from both trials and routine practice in this emerging area.Patients with early-stage rectal cancer might potentially benefit from treatment with an organ-sparing approach, which preserves quality of life owing to avoidance of the need for permanent colostomy. Trials conducted to investigate this have so far been hampered by considerable inter-trial heterogeneity in several key features. In this Consensus Statement, the authors provide guidance on the optimal end points, response assessment time points, follow-up procedures and quality of life measu

This comprehensive review written by experts in their field gives an overview on the current status of incorporating positron emission tomography (PET) into radiation treatment planning. Moreover, it highlights ongoing studies for treatment individualisation and per-treatment tumour response monitoring for various primary tumours. Novel tracers and image analysis methods are discussed. The authors believe this contribution to be of crucial value for experts in the field as well as for policy makers deciding on the reimbursement of this powerful imaging modality.

N/A