Nonoperative management protocol for locally advanced rectal cancer.

AIM: The standard treatment for low rectal cancer is preoperative chemoradiotherapy followed by surgery with low anterior resection with diverting ileostomy or abdominoperineal resection, both of which have significant long-term effects on bowel and sexual function. Due to the high morbidity of surgery, there has been increasing interest in nonoperative management for low rectal cancer. The aim of this work is to conduct a pan-Canadian Phase II trial assessing the safety of nonoperative management for low rectal cancer. METHOD: Patients with Stage II or III low rectal cancer completing chemoradiotherapy according to standard of care at participating centres will be assessed for complete clinical response 8-14 weeks following completion of chemoradiotherapy. Subjects achieving a clinical complete response will undergo active surveillance including endoscopy, imaging and bloodwork at regular intervals for 24 months. The primary outcome will be the rate of local regrowth 2 years after chemoradiotherapy. Nonoperative management will be considered safe (i.e. as effective as surgery to achieve local control) if the rate of local regrowth is ≤30% and surgical salvage is possible for all local regrowths. Secondary outcomes will include disease-free and overall survival. CONCLUSION: The results will be highly clinically relevant, as it is expected that nonoperative management will be safe and lead to widespread adoption of nonoperative management in Canada. This change in practice has the potential to decrease the number of patients requiring surgery and the costs associated with surgery and long-term surgical morbidity.

Is mechanical bowel preparation necessary to reduce surgical site infection following colon surgery? Protocol for a multicentre Canadian randomized controlled trial.

AIM: There is significant practice variation with respect to the use of bowel preparation to reduce surgical site infection (SSI) following colon surgery. Although intravenous antibiotics + mechanical bowel preparation + oral antibiotics (IVA + MBP + OA) has been shown to be superior to IVA + MBP and IVA, there are insufficient high-quality data from randomized controlled trails (RCTs) that directly compare these options. This is an important question, because if IVA + OA has similar effectiveness to IVA + MBP + OA, mechanical bowel preparation can be safely omitted, and the associated side effects avoided. The aim of this work is to compare rates of SSI following IVA + OA + MBP (MBP) versus IVA + OA (OA) for elective colon surgery. METHOD: This is a multicentre, parallel, two-arm, noninferiority RCT comparing IVA + OA + MBP versus IVA + OA. The primary outcome is the overall rate of SSI 30 days following surgery. Secondary outcomes are length of stay and 30-day emergency room visit and readmission rates. The planned sample size is 1062 subjects with four participating high-volume centres. Overall SSI rates 30 days following surgery between the treatment groups will be compared using a general linear model. Secondary outcomes will be analysed with linear regression for continuous outcomes, logistic regression for binary outcomes and modified Poisson regression for count data. CONCLUSION: It is expected that IVA + OA will work similarly to IVA + MBP + OA and that this work will provide definitive evidence showing that MBP is not necessary to reduce SSI. This is highly relevant to both patients and physicians as it will have the potential to significantly change practice and outcomes following colon surgery in Canada and beyond.

Home to Stay: A Randomized Controlled Trial Evaluating the Effect of a Postdischarge Mobile App to Reduce 30-Day Readmission Following Elective Colorectal Surgery.

OBJECTIVE: A randomized controlled trial was conducted to evaluate the effect of a postdischarge app on 30-day readmissions and patient-reported outcomes following colorectal surgery. BACKGROUND: Patients undergoing colorectal surgery are particularly vulnerable during their transition from hospital-to-home. There has been increasing interest in e-health to provide cost-effective transitional care. An integrated discharge monitoring program using a mobile app platform was developed to support patients after surgery. METHODS: A 2 arm, superiority randomized control trial was conducted at an academic tertiary care center with patients undergoing elective colorectal surgery. The intervention group received usual postoperative care and postdischarge monitoring with the app. The primary outcome was 30-day readmissions following hospital discharge. RESULTS: Two hundred eighty-two participants were randomized. The majority were young, had inflammatory bowel disease and underwent laparoscopic surgery. Intention to treat analysis showed no difference between groups for 30-day readmission (14.8% vs 17.6%, P =0.55), ER visits (25.0% vs 28.8%, P =0.49), primary care visits (12.5% vs 8.8%, P =0.34) or unplanned healthcare visits (34.4% vs 35.2%, P =0.89). All patient reported outcomes were significantly improved with median scores higher with the app for satisfaction [9, interquartile range (IQR): 8-10 vs 8, IQR: 7-9, P =0.001], well-being (7, IQR: 6-8 vs 6, IQR: 5-7, P =0.001) and significantly lower for anxiety (3, IQR: 2-5 vs 5, IQR: 3-6, P =0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Although the app did not show a significant reduction in 30-day readmission or ER visits, it did lead to significant improvements in patient-reported outcomes. The app may be an important tool to support patients following colorectal surgery.

Home to Stay: A randomized controlled trial protocol to assess use of a mobile app to reduce readmissions following colorectal surgery.

AIM: Patients undergoing colorectal surgery face high rates of emergency room visits and readmission to hospital. These unplanned hospital visits lead to both increased patient anxiety and health care costs. The aim of this study is to evaluate the use of mobile application to support patients undergoing colorectal surgery following discharge from hospital. METHOD: This study is a randomized controlled trial in which the control group will receive standard follow-up care following discharge after surgery and the intervention group will receive standard follow-up care in addition to the mobile application. The primary outcome is the proportion of patients with unplanned hospital visits within 30 days of discharge. The secondary outcomes are patient-reported outcomes on validated scales evaluating their quality of recovery following discharge. A sample size of 670 subjects is planned. For the primary outcome, the control and intervention groups will be compared using a generalized linear model to account for clustering of patients within centres. For the secondary outcomes, the overall scores on the Quality of Recovery 15 and Patient Activation Measure will be analysed using a linear regression model. RESULTS: It is expected that the results of this study will show that the mobile app will lead to significant improvements in unplanned hospital visits as well as improved quality of recovery for patients. CONCLUSION: If the trial is successful, the mobile app can be easily adopted more widely into clinical practice to support patients at home following surgery.

Are colorectal surgery patients willing to accept an increased risk of surgical site infection to avoid mechanical bowel preparation? Implications for future trial design.

AIM: Recent evidence has shown no difference in the risk of surgical site infection (SSI) with oral antibiotics alone (OA) and oral antibiotics in combination with mechanical bowel preparation (OA + MBP), suggesting that the use of MBP may be safely avoided. The aim of this work was to determine the absolute risk of SSI that patients would accept with OA relative to OA + MBP. METHOD: Standardized, in-person interviews were conducted using the threshold task with patients attending colorectal surgery clinics who had previously had MBP. Participants were asked which option they preferred when the absolute risk of SSI was 7% for both options. Next, their switch point was determined by increasing the risk of SSI with OA by 1% intervals until their preference changed from OA to OA + MBP. Median switch point scores were reported and represented the absolute increased risk of SSI that patients would accept with OA relative to OA + MBP. RESULTS: Fifty patients completed the interview. All participants chose OA over OA + MBP when the risk of SSI was 7% for both options. Switch points ranged from 8% to 25%, with a median of 10%, indicating that participants were willing to accept up to a 3% increase in absolute risk of developing a SSI with OA to avoid MBP. CONCLUSIONS: The results showed that patients are willing to accept an increased risk of up to 3% for SSI with OA relative to OA + MBP. Incorporating patient preferences into the planning of future trials has the potential to improve the uptake of trial results into clinical practice.

Quality indicator selection for the Canadian Partnership against Cancer rectal cancer project: A modified Delphi study.

AIM: It is well established that (i) magnetic resonance imaging, (ii) multidisciplinary cancer conference (MCCs), (iii) preoperative radiotherapy, (iv) total mesorectal excision surgery and (v) pathological assessment as described by Quirke are key processes necessary for high quality, rectal cancer care. The objective was to select a set of multidisciplinary quality indicators to measure the uptake of these clinical processes in clinical practice. METHOD: A multidisciplinary panel was convened and a modified two-phase Delphi method was used to select a set of quality indicators. Phase 1 included a literature review with written feedback from the panel. Phase 2 included an in-person workshop with anonymous voting. The selection criteria for the indicators were strength of evidence, ease of capture and usability. Indicators for which ≥90% of the panel members voted 'to keep' were selected as the final set of indicators. RESULTS: During phase 1, 68 potential indicators were generated from the literature and an additional four indicators were recommended by the panel. During phase 2, these 72 indicators were discussed; 48 indicators met the 90% inclusion threshold and included eight pathology, five radiology, 11 surgical, six radiation oncology and 18 MCC indicators. CONCLUSION: A modified Delphi method was used to select 48 multidisciplinary quality indicators to specifically measure the uptake of key processes necessary for high quality care of patients with rectal cancer. These quality indicators will be used in future work to identify and address gaps in care in the uptake of these clinical processes.

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.

Home to Stay: An Integrated Monitoring System Using a Mobile App to Support Patients at Home Following Colorectal Surgery.

BACKGROUND: Patients undergoing colorectal surgery are vulnerable during their transition from hospital to home and require increased support following discharge from hospital. Study objectives were to perform an initial assessment of patient uptake, outcomes, and satisfaction with an integrated discharge monitoring system called Home to Stay. METHODS: The intervention was an integrated discharge monitoring system that uses a mobile app platform. Patients downloaded the app prior to discharge from hospital and received a Daily Health Check day #1 to #14, #21, and #30. Patient responses' were accessed by the health-care team via secure web site, and extreme responses were "flagged" to indicate that a follow-up telephone call was necessary. Primary outcomes were patient uptake, Quality of Recovery scores and satisfaction with the program. Secondary outcomes were 30-day emergency room (ER) visits and readmissions. RESULTS: One hundred and thirty-two patients were invited to participate and 106 accepted. Of these, 93 used the app at least once. The mean overall score on the Quality of Recovery Scale increased significantly from day 1 to day 14. Patient satisfaction with the app was high, with 92% of patients reporting overall satisfaction as good or excellent. The 30-day readmission rate was 6% and was lower than the 30-day readmission rate of 18% reported for the 4 months prior to the start of the study. CONCLUSIONS: The Home to Stay Program to support patients at home after colorectal surgery is feasible with high patient uptake and satisfaction. This program has the potential to reduce 30-day readmissions, however further studies are required.

Evaluating A Multidisciplinary Cancer Conference Checklist: Practice Versus Perceptions.

BACKGROUND: Presentation to multidisciplinary cancer conferences (MCCs) supports optimal treatment of young women with breast cancer (YWBC). However, research shows barriers to MCC practice, and variation in professional attendance and referral patterns. A checklist may help overcome these barriers and support MCC practice with YWBC. METHODS: We developed, piloted and evaluated an MCC checklist in sites participating in a pan-Canadian study (RUBY; Reducing the bUrden of Breast cancer in Young women). A survey assessed checklist processes and impacts, and checklist data were analysed for checklist uptake, MCC presentation rates and MCC processes including staff attendance. RESULTS: Fifteen RUBY sites used the checklist (~50%), mostly for data collection/tracking. Some positive effects on clinical practice such as increased presentation of YWBC at MCC were reported, but most survey participants indicated that MCC processes were sufficient without the checklist. Conversely, checklist data show that only 31% of patients were presented at MCC. Of those, 41% were recommended treatment change. CONCLUSION: Despite limited checklist uptake, there was evidence of its clinical practice benefit. Furthermore, it supported data collection/quality monitoring. Critically, checklist data showed gaps in MCC practice and low MCC presentation rates for YWBC. This contrasts with overall provider perceptions that MCCs are working well. Findings suggest that supports for MCC are needed but may best take the form of clear national practice recommendations and audit and feedback cycles to inform awareness of good MCC practice and outcomes. In this setting, tools like the MCC checklist may become helpful in supporting MCC practice.

Striving to Do No Harm and Yet Respect Patient Autonomy: Plastic Surgeons' Perspectives of the Consultation for Breast Reconstruction with Women Who Have Early-Stage Breast Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Rates of contralateral prophylactic mastectomy (CPM) have doubled over the last decade among women considered low risk for developing contralateral breast cancer. Despite the strong association between CPM and breast reconstruction, little is known about the clinical encounter between patients and plastic surgeons. A qualitative study was performed to understand how plastic surgeons describe their roles in the treatment decision-making process through their consultations with women who have unilateral early-stage breast cancer. METHODS: Semi-structured interviews with Ontario plastic surgeons were conducted. An inductive and interpretive thematic approach was initially used to analyze the data. The four principles of biomedical ethics then served as the conceptual lens to interpret the findings. RESULTS: The participants in this study were 18 plastic surgeons, and data saturation was reached. Four themes were identified: maintaining non-maleficence, supporting patient autonomy, delivering (un)equal health care, and providing care to enhance well-being. The ongoing push-pull between competing ethical principles was the overarching theme, specifically, striving to balance parallel responsibilities to do no harm while also respecting patients' rights to make their own healthcare decisions. CONCLUSIONS: In this patient-centric climate, it is important to acknowledge that patients may value outcomes such as achieving greater peace of mind above other clinical factors and are willing to incur additional risks to achieve these goals. Shared decision-making will help to reveal the rationale underlying each individual's treatment choice, which in turn will allow physicians to appropriately weigh patient requests with the best available medical evidence when counseling women on decision-making for breast cancer care.

Safety and Feasibility of Using Magnetic Resonance Imaging Criteria to Identify Patients With "Good Prognosis" Rectal Cancer Eligible for Primary Surgery: The Phase 2 Nonrandomized QuickSilver Clinical Trial.

IMPORTANCE: Chemoradiotherapy (CRT), followed by surgery, is the recommended approach for stage II and III rectal cancer. While CRT decreases the risk of local recurrence, it does not improve survival and leads to poorer functional outcomes than surgery alone. Therefore, new approaches to better select patients for CRT are important. OBJECTIVE: To conduct a phase 2 study to evaluate the safety and feasibility of using magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) criteria to select patients with "good prognosis" rectal tumors for primary surgery. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Prospective nonrandomized phase 2 study at 12 high-volume colorectal surgery centers across Canada. From September 30, 2014, to October 21, 2016, a total of 82 patients were recruited for the study. Participants were patients newly diagnosed as having rectal cancer with MRI-predicted good prognosis rectal cancer. The MRI criteria for good prognosis tumors included distance to the mesorectal fascia greater than 1 mm; definite T2, T2/early T3, or definite T3 with less than 5 mm of extramural depth of invasion; and absent or equivocal extramural venous invasion. INTERVENTIONS: Patients with rectal cancer with MRI-predicted good prognosis tumors underwent primary surgery. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The primary outcome was the proportion of patients with a positive circumferential resection margin (CRM) rate. Assuming a 10% baseline probability of a positive CRM, a sample size of 75 was estimated to yield a 95% CI of ±6.7%. RESULTS: Eighty-two patients (74% male) participated in the study. The median age at the time of surgery was 66 years (range, 37-89 years). Based on MRI, most tumors were midrectal (65% [n = 53]), T2/early T3 (60% [n = 49]), with no suspicious lymph nodes (63% [n = 52]). On final pathology, 91% (n = 75) of tumors were T2 or greater, 29% (n = 24) were node positive, and 59% (n = 48) were stage II or III. The positive CRM rate was 4 of 82 (4.9%; 95% CI, 0.2%-9.6%). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: The use of MRI criteria to select patients with good prognosis rectal cancer for primary surgery results in a low rate of positive CRM and suggests that CRT may not be necessary for all patients with stage II and III rectal cancer. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN.com identifier: ISRCTN05107772.

Selection of Patients With Rectal Cancer for Preoperative Chemoradiotherapy: Are T Category and Nodal Status All That Matters?

BACKGROUND: Although the accuracy of preoperative MRI staging has been established on follow-up histopathologic examination, the reproducibility of MRI staging has been evaluated in studies with expert radiologists reading a large sample of MRI images and therefore is not generalizable to the real-world setting. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the interrater reliability of MRI for distance to the mesorectal fascia, T category, mesorectal lymph node status, and extramural depth of invasion for preoperative staging of primary rectal cancer. DESIGN: This was a prospective, cross-sectional survey. SETTINGS: The study was conducted in Ontario, Canada. PARTICIPANTS: Participants included GI radiologists. INTERVENTIONS: Participants read 5 preselected staging MRIs using a synoptic report and participated in an educational Webinar. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Distance to the mesorectal fascia, T category, extramural depth of invasion, and mesorectal lymph node status for each MRI were abstracted. Data were analyzed in aggregate using percentage of agreement, Fleiss κ, and interclass correlation coefficients to assess interrater reliability. RESULTS: Reliability was highest for distance to the mesorectal fascia with an intraclass correlation of 0.58 (95% CI, 0.27-0.80). Kappa scores for T category, mesorectal lymph node status, and extramural depth of invasion were 0.38 (95% CI, 0.23-0.46), 0.41 (95% CI, 0.32-0.49), and 0.37 (95% CI, 0.16-0.82). There was no difference when radiologists were stratified by experience or volume. LIMITATIONS: Scores may have been affected by MRI selection, because they were chosen to demonstrate diagnostic challenges for the Webinar and did not reflect a representative sample. CONCLUSIONS: Interrater reliability was highest for distance to mesorectal fascia, and therefore, it may be a more reliable criterion than T category, extramural depth of invasion, or mesorectal lymph node status. Combined with the fact that an uninvolved mesorectal fascia is more consistent with the overall goal of rectal cancer surgery, it should be considered as an important MRI criterion for preoperative treatment decision making in the real-world setting. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/A763.

Patient and Physician Preferences for Nonoperative Management for Low Rectal Cancer: Is It a Reasonable Treatment Option?

BACKGROUND: Although the body of evidence supporting nonoperative management for rectal cancer has been accumulating, there has been little systematic investigation to explore how physicians and patients value the tradeoffs between oncologic and functional outcomes after abdominal perineal resection and nonoperative management. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to elicit patient and physician preferences for nonoperative management relative to abdominal perineal resection in the setting of low rectal cancer. DESIGN: We conducted a standardized interviews of patients and a cross-sectional survey of physicians. SETTINGS: Patients from 1 tertiary care center and physicians from across Canada were included. PATIENTS: The study involved 50 patients who were previously treated for rectal cancer and 363 physicians who treat rectal cancer. INTERVENTIONS: Interventions included standardized interviews using the threshold technique with patients and surveys mailed to physicians. MAIN OUTCOMES MEASURES: We measured absolute increase risk in local regrowth and absolute decrease in overall survival that patients and physicians would accept with nonoperative management relative to abdominal perineal resection. RESULTS: Patients were willing to accept a 20% absolute increase for local regrowth (ie, from 0% to 20%) and a 20% absolute decrease in overall survival (ie, from 80% to 60%) with nonoperative management relative to abdominal perineal resection, whereas physicians were willing to accept a 5% absolute increase for local regrowth (ie, from 0% to 5%) and a 5% absolute decrease in overall survival (ie, from 80% to 75%) with nonoperative management relative to abdominal perineal resection. LIMITATIONS: Data were subject to response bias and generalizable to only a select group of patients with low rectal cancer. CONCLUSIONS: Offering nonoperative management as an option to patients, even if oncologic outcomes are not equivalent, may be more consistent with the values of patients in this setting. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/A688.

Prevalence of Physiologic Sexual Dysfunction Is High Following Treatment for Rectal Cancer: But Is It the Only Thing That Matters?

BACKGROUND: Although several studies have reported high rates of sexual dysfunction in patients treated for rectal cancer, most studies have been limited by retrospective design, failure to use validate instruments, and a limited number of female patients. OBJECTIVES: The objectives of this study were to 1) prospectively assess changes in sexual function before and after treatment for rectal cancer and 2) identify potential areas for improved care of patients who have rectal cancer with sexual dysfunction. DESIGN: This study is a prospective, longitudinal survey. SETTINGS: This study was conducted at 4 tertiary care academic hospitals. PATIENTS: The patients included had newly diagnosed rectal cancer. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Subjects completed the European Organization for Research and Treatment Quality of Life Cancer Module and Colorectal Cancer Module, International Index of Erectile Function, and Female Sexual Function Index questionnaires before the start of treatment, after the completion of preoperative chemoradiotherapy, and 1 year after surgery. RESULTS: Forty-five patients completed the study, and the overall results showed significant sexual dysfunction in both male and female subjects that continued to increase from baseline up to 1 year after surgery. In male subjects, sexual activity, interest, and enjoyment remained relatively stable, despite increasing sexual problems. However, for female patients, although sexual activity and interest remained relatively stable, sexual enjoyment worsened as sexual problems increased. LIMITATIONS: The study closed before reaching the target sample size owing to lower than anticipated accrual rates. Post hoc analysis included qualitative interviews with patients to explore reasons for low recruitment. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study show that sexual problems continue to increase up to 1 year after surgery. Despite this, sexual interest in both male and female patients remained relatively unchanged suggesting that other aspects of sexuality, not just physiologic function, also need to be evaluated. Future studies to assist and educate physicians on how to initiate a discussion about sexuality and identify patients in "distress" because of sexual problems are important.

Development and implementation of a synoptic MRI report for preoperative staging of rectal cancer on a population-based level.

BACKGROUND: Colorectal cancer physician champions across the province of Ontario, Canada, reported significant concern about appropriate selection of patients for preoperative chemoradiotherapy because of perceived variation in the completeness and consistency of MRI reports. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this work was to develop, pilot test, and implement a synoptic MRI report for preoperative staging of rectal cancer. DESIGN: This was an integrated knowledge translation project. SETTINGS: This study was conducted in Ontario, Canada. PATIENTS: Surgeons, radiologists, radiation oncologists, medical oncologists, and pathologists treating patients with rectal cancer were included in this study. INTERVENTIONS: A multifaceted knowledge translation strategy was used to develop, pilot test, and implement a synoptic MRI report. This strategy included physician champions, audit and feedback, assessment of barriers, and tailoring to the local context. A radiology webinar was conducted to pilot test the synoptic MRI report. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Seventy-three (66%) of 111 Ontario radiologists participated in the radiology webinar and evaluated the synoptic MRI report. RESULTS: A total of 78% and 90% radiologists expressed that the synoptic MRI report was easy to use and included all of the appropriate items; 82% noted that the synoptic MRI report improved the overall quality of their information, and 83% indicated they would consider using this report in their clinical practice. An MRI report audit after implementation of the synoptic MRI report showed a 39% improvement in the completeness of MRI reports and a 37% uptake of the synoptic MRI report format across the province. LIMITATIONS: Radiologists evaluating the synoptic MRI report and participating in the radiology webinar may not be representative of gastroenterologic radiologists in other geographic jurisdictions. The evaluation of completeness and uptake of the synoptic MRI reports is limited because of unmeasured differences that may occur before and after the MRI. CONCLUSIONS: A synoptic MRI report for preoperative staging of rectal cancer was successfully developed and pilot tested in the province of Ontario, Canada.

Physicians' awareness of cytoreductive surgery and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy for colorectal cancer carcinomatosis.

BACKGROUND: Recent trials have shown that cytoreductive surgery and heated intraperitoneal chemotherapy (S+HIPEC) for colorectal cancer carcinomatosis (CRC-C) leads to 5-year, disease-free survival rates of more than 30%. Since these data represent a substantial change in the management of CRC-C, the objectives of this study were to determine physicians' awareness of S+HIPEC for CRC-C and physician characteristics predictive of awareness of S+HIPEC for CRC-C. METHODS: This study was a mailed, cross-sectional survey of general surgeons and medical oncologists in Ontario. RESULTS: The response rate was 44.0% (214 of 487). Most respondents were men and younger than 50 years. There was an even split between those at academic and community hospitals. Overall, 46% of respondents were aware of S+HIPEC for CRC-C, and multivariate analysis showed that there were no physician characteristics predictive of awareness of S+HIPEC for CRC-C. CONCLUSION: Physician awareness of S+HIPEC for CRC-C is low. Therefore, strategies to improve patient and physician knowledge about S+HIPEC for CRC-C are important to ensure appropriate treatment for patients.

CONTEXTE: Des essais récents ont démontré que la chirurgie de réduction tumorale combinée à la chimiothérapie intrapéritonéale hyperthermique (S+HIPEC) contre la carcinomatose du cancer colorectal (C-CCR) produit des taux de survie sans maladie de 5 ans qui dépassent 30 %. Comme ces données représentent une modification importante de la prise en charge de la C-CCR, l'étude visait à déterminer si les médecins connaissent la technique S+HIPEC contre la C-CCR et les caractéristiques des médecins qui prédisent une connaissance de la technique S+HIPEC contre la C-CCR. MÉTHODES: L'étude consistait en un sondage transversal postal mené auprès de chirurgiens généraux et de médecins oncologues de l'Ontario. RÉSULTANTS: Le taux de réponse a atteint 44,0 % (214 sur 487). La plupart des répondants étaient des hommes de moins de 50 ans. La répartition entre les hôpitaux universitaires et les hôpitaux communautaires était égale. Dans l'ensemble, 46 % des répondants connaissaient la technique S+HIPEC contre la C-CCR et une analyse à variables multiples a montré qu'il n'y avait pas de caractéristiques des médecins qui pouvaient prédire la connaissance de la technique S+HIPEC contre la C-CCR. CONCLUSIONS: Les médecins connaissent peu la technique S+HIPEC contre la C-CCR. Des stratégies visant à améliorer la connaissance de la technique S+HIPEC contre la C-CCR chez les patients et les médecins sont importantes pour assurer le traitement approprié des patients.

Patient decision aids for cancer treatment: are there any alternatives?

BACKGROUND: Although patient decision aids (pDAs) are effective, widespread use of pDAs for cancer treatment has not been achieved. The objectives of this study were to perform a systematic review to identify alternate types of decision support interventions (DSIs) for cancer treatment and a meta-analysis to compare the effectiveness of these DSIs to pDAs. METHODS: The inclusion criteria for the study were: 1) all published studies using a randomized, controlled trial design, and 2) DSIs involving treatment decision-making for breast, prostate, colorectal, and/or lung cancer. For this analysis, DSIs were classified as pDAs if: 1) one reported outcome measure mapped onto the International Patient Decision Aids Standards Collaboration effectiveness criterion, and 2) the DSI was evaluated relative to standard consultation. Random effects models were used to compare the effectiveness of pDAs relative to other identified DSIs for reported outcomes. RESULTS: A total of 71 studies were reviewed, and 24 met the inclusion criteria. Overall, there were no significant differences in knowledge, satisfaction, anxiety, or decisional conflict scores between pDAs and other DSIs. CONCLUSIONS: This study showed that the effectiveness of other DSIs, including question prompt lists and audiorecording of the consultation, is similar to pDAs. This is important because it may be that these less complex DSIs may be all that is necessary to achieve similar outcomes as pDAs for cancer treatment.

Diagnostic accuracy of MRI for assessment of T category, lymph node metastases, and circumferential resection margin involvement in patients with rectal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is increasingly being used for rectal cancer staging. The purpose of this study was to determine the accuracy of phased array MRI for T category (T1-2 vs. T3-4), lymph node metastases, and circumferential resection margin (CRM) involvement in primary rectal cancer. METHODS: Medline, Embase, and Cochrane databases were searched using combinations of keywords relating to rectal cancer and MRI. Reference lists of included articles were also searched by hand. Inclusion criteria were: (1) original article published January 2000-March 2011, (2) use of phased array coil MRI, (3) histopathology used as reference standard, and (4) raw data available to create 2×2 contingency tables. Patients who underwent preoperative long-course radiotherapy or chemoradiotherapy were excluded. Two reviewers independently extracted data. Sensitivity, specificity, and diagnostic odds ratio were estimated for each outcome using hierarchical summary receiver-operating characteristics and bivariate random effects modeling. RESULTS: Twenty-one studies were included in the analysis. There was notable heterogeneity among studies. MRI specificity was significantly higher for CRM involvement [94%, 95% confidence interval (CI) 88-97] than for T category (75%, 95% CI 68-80) and lymph nodes (71%, 95% CI 59-81). There was no significant difference in sensitivity between the three elements as a result of wide overlapping CIs. Diagnostic odds ratio was significantly higher for CRM (56.1, 95% CI 15.3-205.8) than for lymph nodes (8.3, 95% CI 4.6-14.7) but did not differ significantly from T category (20.4, 95% CI 11.1-37.3). CONCLUSIONS: MRI has good accuracy for both CRM and T category and should be considered for preoperative rectal cancer staging. In contrast, lymph node assessment is poor on MRI.

Do patients consider preoperative chemoradiation for primary rectal cancer worthwhile?

BACKGROUND: The objective of this study was to elicit future patients' preferences for preoperative chemoradiation (pre-CRT) for rectal cancer to determine whether patients' preferences are consistent with current treatment guidelines. METHODS: During a standardized interview, the treatment protocol, risks, benefits, and long-term outcomes associated with 1) surgery alone (SA) and 2) pre-CRT followed by surgery (CR + S) were described to healthy individuals, and a threshold task was performed. Each participant was asked which treatment option they would prefer when the risk of local recurrence was set initially at 15% for both options. If the participant indicated SA (which was expected), then the risk of local recurrence for CR + S was lowered systematically until the participant's preference changed from SA to CR + S. This threshold point represented the risk of local recurrence for pre-CRT that the participant would require before they would choose treatment with pre-CRT. RESULTS: Fifty individuals participated in the study, and the majority were well educated. Twenty-seven of 50 participants (54%) required a risk of local recurrence with CR + S of ≤ 5% (ie, equivalent to an absolute risk reduction ≥ 10%) before they would choose treatment with pre-CRT. Regression analysis did not identify any variables that were predictive of the participants' preferences. CONCLUSIONS: Participants seemed to highly value functional outcomes and seemed willing to accept a higher risk of local recurrence to achieve this. Therefore, developers of future guidelines may need to downgrade the use of pre-CRT for all patients with stage II/III tumors from a guideline to an option.