Impact des conférences de consensus sur la prise en charge du cancer du côlon et du rectum

Impact of recommendations and new therapies on the prognosis of colon cancer with synchronous liver metastasis

OBJECTIVE

To assess the prognostic impact of the new therapies recommended over the past twenty years for colonic cancers with synchronous hepatic metastasis (hmCC).

METHODS

From 1995 to 2016, 802 hmCC were identified in a tumor registry. An univariate and multivariate analysis looked for the impact of the different recommendations over three periods: chemotherapy without targeted therapy (p1CH), chemotherapy with targeted agent in 2nd line (p2TA2), chemotherapy with TA in 1st line (p3TA1) depending on anatomoclinical criteria and therapeutic sequences: chemotherapy then resection of the primary tumor (CR) (n = 100), resection of the primary tumor then chemotherapy (RC) (n = 541), chemotherapy alone with or without TC (onlyCH) (n = 161).

RESULTS

The rates of onlyCH, CR and RC had varied respectively during these 3 periods from 12% to 26%, 6% to 21% and from 82% to 53% (p = 0.001). The medians of p1CH, p2TA2 and p3TA1 survival were 20.2, 22.7 and 23.6 months, respectively (p = 0.12). The independent factors of poor prognosis were age ≥ 75 years (1.6 [1.35; 1.9] p = 0.0001), chemotherapy only 2.3 [1.6; 3.5] p = 0.0001), p1CH 1.7 [1.4; 2.1] p<0.0001), p2TA2 1.2 [1.02;1.6] p = 0.04. The p2TA2 period had a worse prognosis than p3TA1 (1.25 [1.01; 1.5] p = 0.03).

CONCLUSION

In public health point of view, the recommendation of first-line TA improved survival and increased rate of primary tumor resection after chemotherapy.

Have French recommendations had an impact on the treatment and survival of middle and lower rectal cancer patients?

OBJECTIVE

Compare the survival of middle and lower rectal cancer (MLRC) patients before and after the 1994 issue of rectal cancer (RC) consensus conference recommendations.

METHODS

Cases of MLRC noted in the Hérault department of France in 1992 (n=58) and 2000 (n=93) yielded exhaustive epidemiological, clinical-pathological and treatment data that were used to compare MLRC patient management and survival in these two periods.

RESULTS

Significantly more lymph nodes (≥ 8) were harvested in 2000 (≥ 8, 47%) than in 1992. In all, 45 patients (77.6%) received radiotherapy in 1992, and 74 (82%) in 2000. Chemotherapy was employed in 15 patients (25.9%) in 1992 and in 39 patients (43%) in 2000. Chemotherapy and radiotherapy, together with sphincter conservation, were dependent upon the year. Overall 5-year relative survival for rectal cancer in the Hérault department did not vary between 1992 (56%) and 2000 (56%). Independent poor prognostic factors were the same in both years: age over 75 years, lymph node involvement and metastases. Management place and year had no significant impact on prognosis.

CONCLUSION

The recommendations made have had little impact on disease management and the quality of anatomic pathology reports, and have not improved 5-year relative survival.

International preoperative rectal cancer management: staging, neoadjuvant treatment, and impact of multidisciplinary teams

BACKGROUND

Little is known regarding variations in preoperative treatment and practice for rectal cancer (RC) on an international level, yet practice variation may result in differences in recurrence and survival rates.

METHODS

One hundred seventy-three international colorectal centers were invited to participate in a survey of preoperative management of rectal cancer.

RESULTS

One hundred twenty-three (71%) responded, with a majority of respondents from North America, Europe, and Asia. Ninety-three percent have more than 5 years' experience with rectal cancer surgery. Fifty-five percent use CT scan, 35% MRI, 29% ERUS, 12% digital rectal examination and 1% PET scan in all RC cases. Seventy-four percent consider threatened circumferential margin (CRM) an indication for neoadjuvant treatment. Ninety-two percent prefer 5-FU-based long-course neoadjuvant chemoradiation therapy (CRT). A significant difference in practice exists between the US and non-US surgeons: poor histological differentiation as an indication for CRT (25% vs. 7.0%, p = 0.008), CRT for stage II and III rectal cancer (92% vs. 43%, p = 0.0001), MRI for all RC patients (20% vs. 42%, p = 0.03), and ERUS for all RC patients (43% vs. 21%, p = 0.01). Multidisciplinary team meetings significantly influence decisions for MRI (RR = 3.62), neoadjuvant treatment (threatened CRM, RR = 5.67, stage II + III RR = 2.98), quality of pathology report (RR = 4.85), and sphincter-saving surgery (RR = 3.81).

CONCLUSIONS

There was little consensus on staging, neoadjuvant treatment, and preoperative management of rectal cancer. Regular multidisciplinary team meetings influence decisions about neoadjuvant treatment and staging methods.