Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 3 de 3
Filter
Add more filters










Database
Language
Publication year range
1.
Eur J Cancer ; 204: 114062, 2024 Jun.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38678762

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION: The OligoMetastatic Esophagogastric Cancer (OMEC) project aims to provide clinical practice guidelines for the definition, diagnosis, and treatment of esophagogastric oligometastatic disease (OMD). METHODS: Guidelines were developed according to AGREE II and GRADE principles. Guidelines were based on a systematic review (OMEC-1), clinical case discussions (OMEC-2), and a Delphi consensus study (OMEC-3) by 49 European expert centers for esophagogastric cancer. OMEC identified patients for whom the term OMD is considered or could be considered. Disease-free interval (DFI) was defined as the time between primary tumor treatment and detection of OMD. RESULTS: Moderate to high quality of evidence was found (i.e. 1 randomized and 4 non-randomized phase II trials) resulting in moderate recommendations. OMD is considered in esophagogastric cancer patients with 1 organ with ≤ 3 metastases or 1 involved extra-regional lymph node station. In addition, OMD continues to be considered in patients with OMD without progression in number of metastases after systemic therapy. 18F-FDG PET/CT imaging is recommended for baseline staging and for restaging after systemic therapy when local treatment is considered. For patients with synchronous OMD or metachronous OMD and a DFI ≤ 2 years, recommended treatment consists of systemic therapy followed by restaging to assess suitability for local treatment. For patients with metachronous OMD and DFI > 2 years, upfront local treatment is additionally recommended. DISCUSSION: These multidisciplinary European clinical practice guidelines for the uniform definition, diagnosis and treatment of esophagogastric OMD can be used to standardize inclusion criteria in future clinical trials and to reduce variation in treatment.


Subject(s)
Esophageal Neoplasms , Stomach Neoplasms , Humans , Esophageal Neoplasms/therapy , Esophageal Neoplasms/pathology , Esophageal Neoplasms/diagnosis , Stomach Neoplasms/therapy , Stomach Neoplasms/pathology , Stomach Neoplasms/diagnosis , Europe , Consensus , Neoplasm Metastasis , Delphi Technique
2.
Eur J Cancer ; 185: 28-39, 2023 05.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-36947929

ABSTRACT

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 resulted in a multidisciplinary European consensus statement for the definition, diagnosis and treatment of oligometastatic oesophagogastric adenocarcinoma and squamous cell cancer. This can be used to standardise inclusion criteria for future clinical trials.


Subject(s)
Neoplasms , Humans , Delphi Technique , Europe
3.
Surg Endosc ; 29(5): 1123-9, 2015 May.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-25171881

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The techniques available for antireflux surgery have expanded with the introduction of the magnetic sphincter augmentation device (MSAD) for gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD). METHODS: A prospective, multicenter registry evaluated MSAD and laparoscopic fundoplication (LF) in clinical practice (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01624506). Data collection included baseline characteristics, reflux symptoms, proton-pump inhibitor (PPI) use, side effects, and complications. Post-surgical evaluations were collected at one year. RESULTS: At report, 249 patients (202 MSAD patients and 47 LF patients) had completed one-year follow-up. The LF group was older and had a greater frequency of large hiatal hernias and Barrett's esophagus than the MSAD group (P < 0.001). The median GERD-health related quality of life score improved from 20.0 to 3.0 after MSAD and 23.0 to 3.5 after LF. Moderate or severe regurgitation improved from 58.2 to 3.1% after MSAD and 60.0 to 13.0% after LF (P = 0.014). Discontinuation of PPIs was achieved by 81.8% of patients after MSAD and 63.0% after LF (P = 0.009). Excessive gas and abdominal bloating were reported by 10.0% of patients after MSAD and 31.9% following LF (P ≤ 0.001). Following MSAD, 91.3% of patients were able to vomit if needed, compared with 44.4% of those undergoing LF (P < 0.001). Reoperation rate was 4.0% following MSAD and 6.4% following LF. CONCLUSION: Antireflux surgery should be individualized to the characteristics of each patient, taking into consideration anatomy and propensity and tolerance of side effects. Both MSAD and LF showed significant improvements in reflux control, with similar safety and reoperation rates. In the treatment continuum of antireflux surgery, MSAD should be considered as a first-line surgical option in appropriately selected patients without Barrett's esophagus or a large hiatal hernia in order to avoid unnecessary dissection and preserve the patient's native gastric anatomy. MSAD is an important treatment option and will expand the surgeon's role in treating GERD.


Subject(s)
Esophageal Sphincter, Lower/surgery , Fundoplication/methods , Gastroesophageal Reflux/surgery , Laparoscopy/methods , Female , Follow-Up Studies , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Prospective Studies , Quality of Life , Reoperation , Time Factors , Treatment Outcome
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL
...