Multidisciplinary Conference and Clinical Management of Rectal Cancer

Management of Rectal Cancer in Lynch Syndrome: Balancing Risk Reduction and Quality of Life

Patients with Lynch syndrome are predisposed to developing colorectal cancer and a variety of extracolonic malignancies, at a young age. The management of rectal cancer in the setting of Lynch syndrome is a complex clinical scenario that requires the expertise of a multidisciplinary management team. In this review, we delve into the approach for rectal cancer in these patients, and specifically focus on several key aspects of treatment. Some unique aspects of rectal cancer in Lynch syndrome include the decision between proctectomy alone versus total proctocolectomy with or without an ileal pouch, the utility of chemotherapy and immunotherapy, nonoperative rectal cancer management, and the management of rectal polyps. Throughout, we highlight the delicate interplay between future cancer risk reduction and quality of life optimization.

Combined Resection Approaches: Decision Making for Synchronous Resection, Timing of Staged Intervention to Optimize Outcome

Advancement in systemic and regional radiation therapy, surgical technique, and anesthesia has provided a path for increased long-term survival and potential cure for more patients with stage IV rectal cancer in recent years. When patients have resectable disease, the sequence for surgical resection is classified in three strategies: classic, simultaneous, or combined, and reversed. The classic approach consists of rectal cancer resection followed by metastatic disease at a subsequent operation. Simultaneous resection addresses both rectal and metastatic disease in a single surgery. The reversed approach treats metastatic disease first, followed by the primary tumor in several months. Simultaneous resection is appropriate for selected patients to avoid delay of definitive surgery, and reduce number of surgeries, hospital stay, and cost to the health care system. It may also improve patients' psychological effect. Multidisciplinary discussions including colorectal and liver surgeons to review patients' baseline medical conditions, tumor biology and behavior, and disease burden and distribution is imperative to guide proper patient selection for simultaneous resection and perioperative treatments.

Impact of positron-emission tomography on the surgical treatment of locoregionally recurrent colorectal cancer

BACKGROUND

The effect of positron emission tomography (PET) on the surgical treatment of locoregionally recurrent colorectal cancer (LRRCRC) remains unclear and warrants further investigation.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A total of 193 patients with LRRCRC were identified from a prospectively maintained institutional database, of whom 134 LRRCRCs were deemed resectable and underwent resection with curative intent, whereas the remaining 59 LRRCRCs were unresectable. Patients with resectable LRRCRC were further classified according to whether recurrence was detected solely by PET (n = 35, PET-only group) or by a combination of computed tomography (CT)/magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and PET (n = 99, CT/MRI/PET group). Clinicopathologic features, operative morbidity/mortality, and overall survival were compared between the patient groups based on long-term follow-up for at least 5 years.

RESULTS

Patients in the PET-only group tended to have less extensive organ resection (p = 0.0074), less blood loss (p < 0.0001), and shorter operation time and hospitalization (p < 0.0001), but surgical complication and readmission rates were not significantly different (p > 0.05) compared with the CT/MRI/PET group. Although the PET-only group had significantly higher R0 resection rate (80 % vs. 54.55 %, p = 0.0079), they also had a higher risk (17.14 % vs. 2.02 %, p = 0.0011) of sham operation. The estimated 5-year and 10-year survival rates significantly decreased in order (p < 0.0001) from PET-only (85.71 % and 57.98 %) and CT/MRI/PET (41.41 % and 15.93 %) to unresectable group of patients (16.95 % and 1.88 %). Subset analysis of the CT/MRI/PET group indicated that PET improved surgical decision-making because 24 (24.2 %) LRRCRCs that manifested on CT/MRI as equivocal lesions were later confirmed by PET as resectable recurrences, while 18 (19.4 %) LRRCRCs that manifested on CT/MRI as resectable lesions were later diagnosed by PET as more disseminated unresectable recurrences and precluded futile surgery.

CONCLUSION

PET alone can identify a subset (20.9 %) of LRRCRCs with less tumor burden for timely surgery; PET in combination with CT/MRI can better define the resectability of LRRCRCs. The positive impacts of PET can translate into better surgical outcomes, with enhanced safety and patient survival.

Development of an Online Curriculum for Surgeons on the Use of Pelvic Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Rectal Cancer and Results of a Pilot Study

BACKGROUND

High-resolution pelvic magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is a critical tool in the management of patients with rectal cancer. An on-line curriculum was developed for surgical trainees on the interpretation of pelvic MRI in rectal cancer for clinical staging and surgical planning.

METHODS

The online curriculum was developed using the six-step approach to curriculum development for medical education. The curriculum incorporated case-based learning, annotated videos, and narrated presentations on key aspects of pelvic MRI in rectal cancer. A pilot study was conducted to assess curriculum effectiveness among Complex General Surgical Oncology (CGSO) fellows using pre- and post-intervention assessments.

RESULTS

Of 15 eligible fellows, nine completed the pilot study (60%). The fellows' median confidence score after completing the online curriculum (40, IQR: 33-46) was significantly higher than their baseline median confidence score (23, IQR: 14-30), P = 0.0039. The total practical assessment score significantly increased from a pre-median score of 9 (IQR: 8-11) to a post-median score of 14 (IQR: 13-14), P = 0.0078. A subgroup analysis revealed a significant change in the knowledge assessment with a median score of 7 compared to a baseline median score of 4, Z = 2.64, P = 0.0078. However, the skills assessment showed no significant change.

CONCLUSIONS

The case-based online curriculum had a positive impact on CGSO fellows' knowledge and confidence in the utilization of pelvic MRI for patients with rectal cancer. This unique on-line curriculum demonstrates a mechanism to enhance shared educational collaboration across CGSO fellowships and other surgical training programs.

Multidisciplinary clinics for colorectal cancer may not provide more efficient coordination of care

BACKGROUND

This retrospective study compares a multidisciplinary clinic (MDC) to standard care for time to treatment of colorectal cancer.

METHODS

We queried our institutional ACS-NSQIP database for patients undergoing surgery for colorectal cancer from 2017 to 2020. Patients were stratified by initial clinic visit (MDC vs control). Primary endpoint was the time to start treatment (TST), either neoadjuvant therapy or surgery, from the date of diagnosis by colonoscopy.

RESULTS

A total of 405 patients were evaluated (115 MDC, 290 Control). TST from diagnosis was not significantly shorter for the MDC cohort (MDC 30 days, Control 37 days; p = 0.07) even when stratified by type of initial treatment of neoadjuvant therapy (MDC 30, Control 34 days; p = 0.28) or surgery (MDC 32.5 days, Control 38 days; p = 0.35).

CONCLUSION

Implementation of an MDC provides insignificant reduction in delay to start treatment for colorectal cancer patients as compared to standard care colorectal surgery clinics.

CLASSIFICATION

Colorectal.

The Effects of Multidisciplinary Team Meetings on Clinical Practice for Colorectal, Lung, Prostate and Breast Cancer: A Systematic Review

Simple Summary

Multidisciplinary team meetings have increasingly been implemented in cancer care worldwide to ensure timely, accurate and evidence-based diagnosis, and treatment plans. Nowadays, multidisciplinary team meetings are generally considered indispensable. However, they are considered time-consuming and expensive, while the effects of multidisciplinary team meetings are not yet fully understood. The aim of this systematic review is to update and summarize the literature and create an overview of the existing knowledge. Cancer types such as colorectal, lung, prostate and breast cancer with rapidly increasing incidence rates will inevitably impact the workload of clinicians. Understanding the effects of the widely implemented multidisciplinary team meetings in oncology care is fundamental in order to optimize care pathways and allocate resources in the rapidly diversifying landscape of cancer therapies.

Abstract

Objective: The aim of our systematic review is to identify the effects of multidisciplinary team meetings (MDTM) for lung, breast, colorectal and prostate cancer. Methods: Our systematic review, performed following PRISMA guidelines, included studies examining the impact of MDTMs on treatment decisions, patient and process outcomes. Electronic databases PUBMED, EMBASE, Cochrane Library and Web of Science were searched for articles published between 2000 and 2020. Risk of bias and level of evidence were assessed using the ROBINS-I tool and GRADE scale. Results: 41 of 13,246 articles were selected, evaluating colorectal (21), lung (10), prostate (6) and breast (4) cancer. Results showed that management plans were changed in 1.6–58% of cases after MDTMs. Studies reported a significant impact of MDTMs on surgery type, and a reduction of overall performed surgery after MDTM. Results also suggest that CT and MRI imaging significantly increased after MDTM implementation. Survival rate increased significantly with MDTM discussions according to twelve studies, yet three studies did not show significant differences. Conclusions: Despite heterogeneous data, MDTMs showed a significant impact on management plans, process outcomes and patient outcomes. To further explore the impact of MDTMs on the quality of healthcare, high-quality research is needed.

Impact of optional multidisciplinary tumor board meeting on the mortality of patients with gastrointestinal cancer: A retrospective observational study

Background

Multidisciplinary tumor board meetings (MDTs) have shown a positive effect on patient care and play a role in the planning of care. However, there is limited evidence of the association between MDTs and patient mortality and in‐hospital morbidity for mixed cases of gastrointestinal (GI) cancer.

Aim

To evaluate the influence of optional MDTs on care of patients with cancer to determine potential associations between MDTs and patient mortality and morbidity.

Methods and results

This was a retrospective observational study at the referral center of King Abdulaziz University Hospital, Jeddah, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Among all adult patients diagnosed with GI cancer from January 2017 to June 2019, 130 patients were included. We categorized patients into two groups: 66 in the control group (non‐MDT) and 64 in the MDT group. The main outcome measure was overall mortality, measured by survival analysis. The follow‐up was 100% complete. Four patients in the MDT group and 13 in the non‐MDT group died (P = .04). The median follow‐up duration was 294 days (interquartile range [IQR], 140‐434) in the non‐MDT group compared with 176 days (IQR, 103‐466) in the MDT group (P = .20). There were no differences in intensive care unit or hospital length‐of‐stay or admission rates. The overall mortality at 2 years was 13% (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.06‐0.66) in the MDT group and 38% (95% CI, 0.10‐0.39) in the non‐MDT group (P = .08). The MDT group showed a 72% (adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 0.28; 95% CI, 0.08‐0.90; P = .03) decrease in mortality over time compared with the non‐MDT group.

Conclusions

MDTs were associated with decreased mortality over time. Thus, MDTs have a positive influence on patient care by improving survival and should be incorporated into care.

Impact of Treatment Coordination on Overall Survival in Rectal Cancer

BACKGROUND

Rectal cancer treatment is often multimodal, comprising of surgery, chemotherapy, and radiotherapy. However, the impact of coordination between these modalities is currently unknown. We aimed to assess whether delivery of nonsurgical therapy within same facility as surgery impacts survival in patients with rectal cancer.

METHODS

A patient cohort with rectal cancer stages II to IV who received multimodal treatment between 2004 and 2016 from National Cancer Database was retrospectively analyzed. Patients were categorized into three groups: (A) surgery + chemotherapy + radiotherapy at same facility (surgery + 2); (B) surgery + chemotherapy or radiotherapy at same facility (surgery + 1); or (C) only surgery at reporting facility (chemotherapy + radiotherapy elsewhere; surgery + 0). The primary outcome was 5-year overall survival (OS), analyzed using Kaplan-Meier curves, log-rank tests, and Cox proportional-hazards models.

RESULTS

A total of 44,716 patients (16,985 [37.98%] surgery + 2, 12,317 [27.54%] surgery + 1, and 15,414 [34.47%] surgery + 0) were included. In univariate analysis, we observed that surgery+2 patients had significantly greater 5-year OS compared to surgery + 1 or surgery + 0 patients (5-year OS: 63.46% vs 62.50% vs 61.41%, respectively; P= .002). We observed similar results in multivariable Cox proportional-hazards analysis, with surgery + 0 group demonstrating increased hazard of mortality when compared to surgery + 2 group (HR: 1.09; P< .001). These results held true after stratification by stage for stage II (HR 1.10; P= .022) and stage III (HR 1.12; P< .001) but not for stage IV (P= .474).

CONCLUSION

Greater degree of care coordination within the same facility is associated with greater OS in patients with stage II to III rectal cancer. This finding illustrates the importance of interdisciplinary collaboration in multimodal rectal cancer therapy.

Adherence to neoadjuvant therapy guidelines for locally advanced rectal cancers in a region with sociodemographic disparities

BACKGROUND

Practice guidelines recommend neoadjuvant chemoradiation (NCR) for locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC). We examined guideline adherence in a healthcare system serving a region with socioeconomic disparities and poor cancer outcomes.

METHODS

Retrospective analysis of factors associated with guideline adherence.

RESULTS

63.1% of stage II/III LARC patients received NCR. Factors associated with adherence included white race (OR = 2.15, p = 0.024), private insurance (OR = 2.70, p = 0.005), employed status (OR = 2.30, p = 0.031), age at diagnosis (OR = 0.74, p = 0.032), appropriate local staging (OR = 9.17, p < 0.0001), and diagnosis later in the study period (OR per 1 year = 1.20, p = 0.006). By multivariate analysis, private insurance (OR = 2.51, p = 0.023), younger age (OR per 10 years = 0.72, p = 0.048) and appropriate local staging (OR = 6.67, p < 0.0001) were associated with adherence.

CONCLUSION

Guideline adherence for LARC in our system is low and is impacted by employment, race and insurance status. Standard of care compliance remains an important target for improvement efforts in this underserved region of the nation's Mid-South.

Assessing Gaps in Surgical Oncology Training: Results of a Survey of General Surgery Residents

OBJECTIVE

Many general surgeons devote a significant amount of time and effort to the care of cancer patients. There is currently no standardized, national curriculum in Surgical Oncology for General Surgery residents. The objective of this study was to identify gaps in oncology education among General Surgery residents.

DESIGN

An anonymous survey design was used in the present study. Residents received an invitation to participate along with a link to an online survey. Interested residents selected the link and completed the 10 minute survey. Binomial logistic regression was performed to ascertain the effects of postgraduate year (PGY) on various perceptions and knowledge relating to surgical oncology.

SETTING

The participants included residents from 3 General Surgery residency programs including Florida Atlantic University, The University of Iowa and The University of Connecticut. These are all university-based programs, but residents in each program rotate at several sites each, including both university and community hospitals.

PARTICIPANTS

Participants included clinical PGY 1 to 5 categorical general surgical residents, as well as PGY 1 and 2 General Surgery preliminary residents. A total of 135 residents received the email with the link to the survey. Forty-nine residents from all PGY levels responded to the survey.

RESULTS

Twenty-one percent of the respondents were familiar with American College of Surgeons Commission on Cancer accreditation, which is a major means of maintaining standards in cancer care across institutions in the United States The majority of residents did not receive formal training in such key areas as chemotherapy and radiation therapy basics, survivorship, palliative care, pain management, and cancer screening regimens. These responses were not significantly different across different levels of training. Most importantly, many residents, particularly those in PGY 3 to 5, do not feel that they will be fully prepared to care for cancer patients at the completion of their training.

CONCLUSIONS

The present study provides evidence that regardless of PGY year, residents do not achieve adequate exposure to a variety of cancer-related topics. These include both multidisciplinary cancer care and the operation, accreditation and administration of certified cancer centers. Further, it appears residents do not feel well prepared to provide optimal cancer care at the completion of their training. This data supports the development of a more comprehensive Surgical Oncology curriculum for General Surgery trainees.

The Canadian Partnership Against Cancer Rectal Cancer Project: Protocol for a Pan-Canadian, Multidisciplinary Quality Improvement Initiative to Optimize the Quality of Rectal Cancer Care

BACKGROUND

Over the last 2 decades, the use of multimodal strategies, including total mesorectal excision (TME) surgery, preoperative chemotherapy, multidisciplinary case conference, pelvic magnetic resonance imaging, and pathologic assessment using Quirke method, has led to significant improvements in oncologic outcomes for patients with rectal cancer. Although the literature supports claims on the effectiveness of these multimodal strategies, the uptake of these multimodal strategies varies considerably among centers, suggesting that the best evidence is not always implemented into clinical practice.

OBJECTIVE

This study aims to perform a quality improvement initiative to (1) identify existing gaps in care for these multimodal strategies and (2) implement knowledge translation (KT) interventions to close these gaps to optimize quality of care for patients with rectal cancer across high-volume centers in Canada.

METHODS

Process indicators for the selected multimodal strategies to optimize rectal cancer care will be selected and prospectively collected for all patients with stages 1 to 3 rectal cancer undergoing TME surgery. KT interventions, including audit and feedback, opinion leaders, and community of practice, will be implemented to increase the uptake of these clinical strategies.

RESULTS

The uptake of the process indicators over time and the effect of the uptake of the process indicators on short- and long-term oncologic outcomes will be evaluated for each multimodal strategy.

CONCLUSIONS

This quality improvement initiative will identify existing gaps in care for the selected multimodal strategies and implement KT interventions to close these gaps. The results of this study will inform further efforts to optimize rectal cancer care.

INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID)

DERR1-10.2196/15535.

Impact of multidisciplinary tumor boards on patients with rectal cancer

Οncological outcomes in patients with primary rectal cancer have markedly improved over the last few years, mainly due to the widespread application of the total mesorectal excision technique. This improvement should also be largely attributed to multiple specialties, other than colorectal surgery, such as radiology, oncology and pathology. Therefore, a multimodal approach is key to efficient and appropriate rectal cancer management. Multidisciplinary tumor (MDT) boards have become an important asset for the management and treatment of patients with rectal cancer, and a number of studies published to date suggest the beneficial effect of the multidisciplinary approach on the management of such patients. The available evidence demonstrates a modification of the treatment plan, attributed to the MDT implementation, in a non-negligible proportion of these patients. However, more studies are required in order to assess the exact impact of MDT boards on disease-free and overall survival of patients with primary rectal cancer.