1
|
Morgagni P, Bencivenga M, Carneiro F, Cascinu S, Derks S, Di Bartolomeo M, Donohoe C, Eveno C, Gisbertz S, Grimminger P, Gockel I, Grabsh H, Kassab P, Langer R, Lonardi S, Maltoni M, Markar S, Moehler M, Marrelli D, Mazzei MA, Melisi D, Milandri C, Moenig PS, Mostert B, Mura G, Polkowski W, Reynolds J, Saragoni L, Van Berge Henegouwen MI, Van Hillegersberg R, Vieth M, Verlato G, Torroni L, Wijnhoven B, Tiberio GAM, Yang HK, Roviello F, de Manzoni G. International consensus on the management of metastatic gastric cancer: step by step in the foggy landscape : Bertinoro Workshop, November 2022. Gastric Cancer 2024:10.1007/s10120-024-01479-5. [PMID: 38634954 DOI: 10.1007/s10120-024-01479-5] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/02/2023] [Accepted: 02/05/2024] [Indexed: 04/19/2024]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Many gastric cancer patients in Western countries are diagnosed as metastatic with a median overall survival of less than twelve months using standard chemotherapy. Innovative treatments, like targeted therapy or immunotherapy, have recently proved to ameliorate prognosis, but a general agreement on managing oligometastatic disease has yet to be achieved. An international multi-disciplinary workshop was held in Bertinoro, Italy, in November 2022 to verify whether achieving a consensus on at least some topics was possible. METHODS A two-round Delphi process was carried out, where participants were asked to answer 32 multiple-choice questions about CT, laparoscopic staging and biomarkers, systemic treatment for different localization, role and indication of palliative care. Consensus was established with at least a 67% agreement. RESULTS The assembly agreed to define oligometastases as a "dynamic" disease which either regresses or remains stable in response to systemic treatment. In addition, the definition of oligometastases was restricted to the following sites: para-aortic nodal stations, liver, lung, and peritoneum, excluding bones. In detail, the following conditions should be considered as oligometastases: involvement of para-aortic stations, in particular 16a2 or 16b1; up to three technically resectable liver metastases; three unilateral or two bilateral lung metastases; peritoneal carcinomatosis with PCI ≤ 6. No consensus was achieved on how to classify positive cytology, which was considered as oligometastatic by 55% of participants only if converted to negative after chemotherapy. CONCLUSION As assessed at the time of diagnosis, surgical treatment of oligometastases should aim at R0 curativity on the entire disease volume, including both the primary tumor and its metastases. Conversion surgery was defined as surgery on the residual volume of disease, which was initially not resectable for technical and/or oncological reasons but nevertheless responded to first-line treatment.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Paolo Morgagni
- Department of General Surgery, Morgagni-Pierantoni Hospital, Forlì, Italy
| | - Maria Bencivenga
- General and Upper GI Surgery, Department of Surgery, University Hospital Verona, University of Verona, Verona, Italy.
| | - Fatima Carneiro
- Department of Pathology, Centro Hospitalar de São João, Institute of Molecular Pathology and Immunology of the University of Porto (Ipatimup), Porto, Portugal
| | - Stefano Cascinu
- Department of Medical Oncology, Comprehensive Cancer Center, Università Vita-Salute, IRCCS Ospedale San Raffaele, Milan, Italy
| | - Sarah Derks
- Department of Medical Oncology, Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Maria Di Bartolomeo
- Department of Medical Oncology, Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale dei Tumori, Milan, Italy
| | - Claire Donohoe
- Medicinal Chemistry, Trinity Translational Medicine Institute, Trinity Centre for Health Sciences, Trinity College Dublin, The University of Dublin, St. James's Hospital, Dublin 8, Ireland
| | - Clarisse Eveno
- Department of Digestive and Oncologic Surgery, Claude Huriez University Hospital, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire (CHU) Lille, Université de Lille, Lille, France
| | - Suzanne Gisbertz
- Department of Surgery, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Peter Grimminger
- Department of General, Visceral and Transplant Surgery, University Medical Center, University of Mainz, Mainz, Germany
| | - Ines Gockel
- Department of Visceral, Transplant, Thoracic and Vascular Surgery, University Hospital of Leipzig, Leipzig, Germany
| | - Heike Grabsh
- Department of Pathology, GROW School for Oncology and Developmental Biology, Maastricht University Medical Center, Maastricht, The Netherlands
- Pathology and Data Analytics, Leeds Institute of Medical Research at St James's, University of Leeds, Leeds, United Kingdom
| | - Paulo Kassab
- Gastric Surgery Division, BP Gastric Surgery Department, Santa Casa Medical School, São Paulo, Brazil
| | - Rupert Langer
- Institute of Pathology and Microbiology, Johannes Kepler University Linz, Altenberger Strasse 69, 4040, Linz, Austria
| | - Sara Lonardi
- Istituto Oncologico Veneto IOV-IRCCS, Padua, Italy
| | - Marco Maltoni
- Unit of Palliative Care, Istituto Scientifico Romagnolo per lo Studio e la Cura dei Tumori (IRST) IRCCS, Meldola, Forlì-Cesena, Italy
| | - Sheraz Markar
- Surgical Interventional Trials Unit, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - Markus Moehler
- Department of Medicine, Johannes-Gutenberg University Clinic, Mainz, Germany
| | - Daniele Marrelli
- Unit of General Surgery and Surgical Oncology, Department of Medicine Surgery and Neurosciences, University of Siena, 53100, Siena, Italy
| | - Maria Antonietta Mazzei
- Unit of Diagnostic Imaging, Department of Medical, Surgical and Neuro Sciences and of Radiological Sciences, Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria Senese, University of Siena, 53100, Siena, Italy
| | - Davide Melisi
- Medical Oncology at the Department of Medicine, University of Verona, Verona, Italy
| | - Carlo Milandri
- Department of Oncology, San Donato Hospital, 52100, Arezzo, Italy
| | | | - Bianca Mostert
- Department of Medical Oncology, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, Dr. Molewaterplein 40, 3015 GD, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Gianni Mura
- Department of Surgery, San Donato Hospital, Arezzo, Italy
| | - Wojciech Polkowski
- Department of Surgical Oncology, Medical University of Lublin, Radziwiłłowska 13 St, 20-080, Lublin, Poland
| | | | - Luca Saragoni
- Pathology Unit, Santa Maria delle Croci Ravenna Hospital, Ravenna, Italy
| | - Mark I Van Berge Henegouwen
- Department of Surgery, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | | | - Michael Vieth
- Institute of Pathology, Klinikum Bayreuth, Bayreuth, Germany
| | - Giuseppe Verlato
- Department of Diagnostics and Public Health, Section of Epidemiology and Medical Statistics, University of Verona, Verona, Italy
| | - Lorena Torroni
- Department of Diagnostics and Public Health, Section of Epidemiology and Medical Statistics, University of Verona, Verona, Italy
| | - Bas Wijnhoven
- Department of Surgery, Erasmus MC-University Medical Centre Rotterdam, Rotterdam, Netherlands
| | | | - Han-Kwang Yang
- Surgical Department, SNUH National Cancer Center, Seoul, Korea
| | - Franco Roviello
- Unit of General Surgery and Surgical Oncology, Department of Medicine Surgery and Neurosciences, University of Siena, 53100, Siena, Italy
| | - Giovanni de Manzoni
- General and Upper GI Surgery, Department of Surgery, University Hospital Verona, University of Verona, Verona, Italy
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Breteler MJM, KleinJan E, Numan L, Ruurda JP, Van Hillegersberg R, Leenen LPH, Hermans M, Kalkman CJ, Blokhuis TJ. Are current wireless monitoring systems capable of detecting adverse events in high-risk surgical patients? A descriptive study. Injury 2020; 51 Suppl 2:S97-S105. [PMID: 31761422 DOI: 10.1016/j.injury.2019.11.018] [Citation(s) in RCA: 24] [Impact Index Per Article: 6.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/16/2019] [Revised: 10/25/2019] [Accepted: 11/09/2019] [Indexed: 02/02/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Adverse events are common in high-risk surgical patients, but early detection is difficult. Recent innovations have resulted in wireless and 'wearable' sensors, which may capture patient deterioration at an early stage, but little is known regarding their ability to timely detect events. The objective of this study is to describe the ability of currently available wireless sensors to detect adverse events in high-risk patients. METHODS A descriptive analysis was performed of all vital signs trend data obtained during an observational comparison study of wearable sensors for vital signs monitoring in high-risk surgical patients during the initial days of recovery at a surgical step-down unit (SDU) and subsequent traumatology or surgical oncology ward. Heart rate (HR), respiratory rate (RR) and oxygen saturation (SpO2) were continuously recorded. Vital sign trend patterns of patients that developed adverse events were described and compared to vital sign recordings of patients without occurrence of adverse events. Two wearable patch sensors were used (SensiumVitals and HealthPatch), a bed-based mattress sensor (EarlySense) and a patient-worn monitor (Masimo Radius-7). RESULTS Twenty adverse events occurred in 11 of the 31 patients included. Atrial fibrillation (AF) was most common (20%). The onset of AF was recognizable as a sudden increase in HR in all recordings, and all patients with new-onset AF after esophagectomy developed other postoperative complications. Patients who developed respiratory insufficiency showed an increase in RR and a decrease in SpO2, but an increase in HR was not always visible. In patients without adverse events, temporary periods of high HR and RR are observed as well, but these were transient and less frequent. CONCLUSIONS Current systems for remote wireless patient monitoring on the ward are capable of detecting abnormalities in vital sign patterns in patients who develop adverse events. Remote patient monitoring may have potential to improve patient safety by generating early warnings for deterioration to nursing staff.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Martine J M Breteler
- Department of Anesthesiology, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, the Netherlands; Luscii Healthtech BV, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
| | - Eline KleinJan
- Department of Technical Medicine, University of Twente, Enschede, the Netherlands
| | - Lieke Numan
- Department of Anesthesiology, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, the Netherlands; Department of Technical Medicine, University of Twente, Enschede, the Netherlands
| | - Jelle P Ruurda
- Department of Surgery, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, the Netherlands
| | | | - Luke P H Leenen
- Department of Surgery, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, the Netherlands
| | - Mathilde Hermans
- Department of Technical Medicine, University of Twente, Enschede, the Netherlands; Biomedical Signals and Systems Group, University of Twente, Enschede, the Netherlands
| | - Cor J Kalkman
- Department of Anesthesiology, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, the Netherlands
| | - Taco J Blokhuis
- Department of Surgery, Maastricht University Medical Center, Maastricht, the Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Samim M, van Veenendaal LM, Braat MNGJA, van den Hoven AF, Van Hillegersberg R, Sangro B, Kao YH, Liu D, Louie JD, Sze DY, Rose SC, Brown DB, Ahmadzadehfar H, Kim E, van den Bosch MAAJ, Lam MGEH. Recommendations for radioembolisation after liver surgery using yttrium-90 resin microspheres based on a survey of an international expert panel. Eur Radiol 2017; 27:4923-4930. [PMID: 28674968 PMCID: PMC5674129 DOI: 10.1007/s00330-017-4889-6] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.9] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/27/2016] [Revised: 03/15/2017] [Accepted: 05/11/2017] [Indexed: 12/31/2022]
Abstract
INTRODUCTION Guidelines on how to adjust activity in patients with a history of liver surgery who are undergoing yttrium-90 radioembolisation (90Y-RE) are lacking. The aim was to study the variability in activity prescription in these patients, between centres with extensive experience using resin microspheres 90Y-RE, and to draw recommendations on activity prescription based on an expert consensus. METHODS The variability in activity prescription between centres was investigated by a survey of international experts in the field of 90Y-RE. Six representative post-surgical patients (i.e. comparable activity prescription, different outcome) were selected. Information on patients' disease characteristics and data needed for activity calculation was presented to the expert panel. Reported was the used method for activity prescription and whether, how and why activity reduction was found indicated. RESULTS Ten experts took part in the survey. Recommendations on activity reduction were highly variable between the expert panel. The median intra-patient range was 44 Gy (range 18-55 Gy). Reductions in prescribed activity were recommended in 68% of the cases. In consensus, a maximum DTarget of 50 Gy was recommended. CONCLUSION With a current lack of guidelines, large variability in activity prescription in post-surgical patients undergoing 90Y-RE exists. In consensus, DTarget ≤50 Gy is recommended. KEY POINTS • BSA method does not account for a decreased remnant liver volume after surgery. • In post-surgical patients, a volume-based activity determination method is recommended. • In post-surgical patients, a mean D Target of ≤ 50Gy should be aimed for.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Morsal Samim
- Department of Surgery, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
- Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
| | - Linde M van Veenendaal
- Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands
| | - Manon N G J A Braat
- Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands
| | - Andor F van den Hoven
- Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands
| | | | - Bruno Sangro
- Liver Unit, Clinica Universidad de Navarra-IDISNA and CIBEREHD, Pamplona, Spain
| | - Yung Hsiang Kao
- Department of Nuclear Medicine, Cabrini Hospital, Melbourne, Australia
| | - Dave Liu
- Department of Radiology, Vancouver General Hospital. University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
| | - John D Louie
- Division of Interventional Radiology, Stanford University Medical Center, Stanford, USA
| | - Daniel Y Sze
- Division of Interventional Radiology, Stanford University Medical Center, Stanford, USA
| | - Steven C Rose
- Department of Radiology, University of California, San Diego, USA
| | - Daniel B Brown
- Department of Radiology, Vanderbilt University, Medical Center North, Nashville, USA
| | | | - Edward Kim
- Division of Vascular and Interventional Radiology, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, USA
| | | | - Marnix G E H Lam
- Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
Haverkamp L, Seesing MFJ, Ruurda JP, Boone J, V Hillegersberg R. Worldwide trends in surgical techniques in the treatment of esophageal and gastroesophageal junction cancer. Dis Esophagus 2017; 30:1-7. [PMID: 27001442 DOI: 10.1111/dote.12480] [Citation(s) in RCA: 70] [Impact Index Per Article: 10.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/11/2022]
Abstract
The aim of this study was to evaluate the worldwide trends in surgical techniques for esophageal cancer surgery by comparing it to our survey from 2007. In addition, new questions were added for gastroesophageal junction (GEJ) cancer. An international survey on surgery of esophageal and GEJ cancer was performed among surgical members of the International Society for Diseases of the Esophagus, the World Organization for Specialized Studies on Disease of the Esophagus, the International Gastric Cancer Association. Also, surgeons from personal networks were contacted. The participants filled out a web based questionnaire about surgical strategies for esophageal and gastroesophageal cancer. The overall response rate was 478/1147 (42%). The respondents represented 49 different countries and 6 different continents. The annual cumulative number of esophageal and gastric resections per surgeon was low (≤11) in 11%, medium (11-21) in 17%, and high (≥21) in 72% of respondents. In a subgroup analysis of esophageal surgeons the number of high volume surgeons increased from 45 to 54% over the past 7 years. The preferred lymph node dissection was two-field in 86%. A gastric conduit was the preferred method of reconstruction in 95%. In 2014, the preferred approach to esophagectomy was minimally invasive transthoracic in 43%, compared with 14% in 2007. In minimally invasive transthoracic esophagectomy the cervical anastomosis was favored in 54% of respondents in 2014 compared with 87% in 2007. The preferred technique of construction of the cervical anastomosis was hand-sewn in 64% and stapled in 36%, whereas the thoracic anastomosis was stapled in 77% and hand-sewn in 23%. The preferred surgical approach for Siewert type 1 tumors (5-1 cm proximal of the GEJ) was esophagectomy in 93% of respondents, whereas 6% favored gastrectomy and 3% combined a distal esophagectomy with a proximal gastrectomy. For Siewert type 2 tumors (1-2 cm from the GEJ) an extended gastrectomy was favored by 66% of respondents, followed by esophagectomy in 27% and total gastrectomy in 7%. Siewert type 3 tumors (2-5 cm distal of the GEJ) were preferably treated with gastrectomy in 90% of respondents, esophagectomy in 6%, and extended gastrectomy in 4%. The preferred curative surgical treatment of esophageal cancer is minimally invasive transthoracic esophagectomy with a two-field lymph node dissection and gastric conduit reconstruction. A strong worldwide trend toward minimally invasive surgery is observed. The preferred surgical treatment of GEJ tumors is esophagectomy for Siewert type 1 tumors and gastrectomy for Siewert type 3 tumors. The majority of surgeons favor an extended gastrectomy for Siewert type 2 tumors.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- L Haverkamp
- Department of Surgery, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands
| | - M F J Seesing
- Department of Surgery, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands
| | - J P Ruurda
- Department of Surgery, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands
| | - J Boone
- Department of Radiology, Academic Medical Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - R V Hillegersberg
- Department of Surgery, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|