BackgroundShared decision-making has become of increased importance in choosing the most suitable treatment strategy for early rectal cancer, however, clinical decision-making is still primarily... Show moreBackgroundShared decision-making has become of increased importance in choosing the most suitable treatment strategy for early rectal cancer, however, clinical decision-making is still primarily based on physicians' perspectives. Balancing quality of life and oncological outcomes is difficult, and guidance on patients' involvement in this subject in early rectal cancer is limited. Therefore, this study aimed to explore preferences and priorities of patients as well as physicians' perspectives in treatment for early rectal cancer.MethodsIn this qualitative study, semi-structured interviews were performed with early rectal cancer patients (n = 10) and healthcare providers (n = 10). Participants were asked which factors influenced their preferences and how important these factors were. Thematic analyses were performed. In addition, participants were asked to rank the discussed factors according to importance to gain additional insights.ResultsPatients addressed the following relevant factors: the risk of an ostomy, risk of poor bowel function and treatment related complications. Healthcare providers emphasized oncological outcomes as tumour recurrence, risk of an ostomy and poor bowel function. Patients perceived absolute risks of adverse outcome to be lower than healthcare providers and were quite willing undergo organ preservation to achieve a better prospect of quality of life.ConclusionPatients' preferences in treatment of early rectal cancer vary between patients and frequently differ from assumptions of preferences by healthcare providers. To optimize future shared decision-making, healthcare providers should be aware of these differences and should invite patients to explore and address their priorities more explicitly during consultation. Factors deemed important by both physicians and patients should be expressed during consultation to decide on a tailored treatment strategy. Show less
BackgroundMalignant gastric outlet obstruction (GOO) is a debilitating condition that frequently occurs in patients with malignancies of the distal stomach and (peri)ampullary region. The standard... Show moreBackgroundMalignant gastric outlet obstruction (GOO) is a debilitating condition that frequently occurs in patients with malignancies of the distal stomach and (peri)ampullary region. The standard palliative treatment for patients with a reasonable life expectancy and adequate performance status is a laparoscopic surgical gastrojejunostomy (SGJ). Recently, endoscopic ultrasound-guided gastroenterostomy (EUS-GE) emerged as a promising alternative to the surgical approach. The present study aims to compare these treatment modalities in terms of efficacy, safety, and costs.MethodsThe ENDURO-study is a multicentre, open-label, parallel-group randomized controlled trial. In total, ninety-six patients with gastric outlet obstruction caused by an irresectable or metastasized malignancy will be 1:1 randomized to either SGJ or EUS-GE. The primary endpoint is time to tolerate at least soft solids. The co-primary endpoint is the proportion of patients with persisting or recurring symptoms of gastric outlet obstruction for which a reintervention is required. Secondary endpoints are technical and clinical success, quality of life, gastroenterostomy dysfunction, reinterventions, time to reintervention, adverse events, quality of life, time to start chemotherapy, length of hospital stay, readmissions, weight, survival, and costs.DiscussionThe ENDURO-study assesses whether EUS-GE, as compared to SGJ, results in a faster resumption of solid oral intake and is non-inferior regarding reinterventions for persistent or recurrent obstructive symptoms in patients with malignant GOO. This trial aims to guide future treatment strategies and to improve quality of life in a palliative setting. Show less
Smits, L.J.H.; Lieshout, A.S. van; Bosker, R.J.I.; Crobach, S.; Graaf, E.J.R. de; Hage, M.; ... ; TESAR Res Grp 2023
Introduction: In early rectal cancer, organ sparing treatment strategies such as local excision have gained popularity. The necessity of radical surgery is based on the histopathological evaluation... Show moreIntroduction: In early rectal cancer, organ sparing treatment strategies such as local excision have gained popularity. The necessity of radical surgery is based on the histopathological evaluation of the local excision specimen. This study aimed to describe diagnostic variability between pathologists, and its impact on treatment allocation in patients with locally excised early rectal cancer. Materials and methods: Patients with locally excised pT1-2 rectal cancer were included in this prospective cohort study. Both quantitative measures and histopathological risk factors (i.e. poor differentiation, deep submucosal invasion, and lymphatic- or venous invasion) were evaluated. Interobserver variability was reported by both percentages and Fleiss' Kappa- (k) or intra-class correlation coefficients. Results: A total of 126 patients were included. Ninety-four percent of the original histopathological reports contained all required parameters. In 73 of the 126 (57.9%) patients, at least one discordant parameter was observed, which regarded histopathological risk factors for lymph node metastases in 36 patients (28.6%). Interobserver agreement among different variables varied between 74% and 95% or k 0.530-0.962. The assessment of lymphovascular invasion showed discordances in 26% (k 1/4 0.530, 95% CI 0.375-0.684) of the cases. In fourteen (11%) patients, discordances led to a change in treatment strategy. Conclusion: This study demonstrated that there is substantial interobserver variability between pathologists, especially in the assessment of lymphovascular invasion. Pathologists play a key role in treatment allocation after local excision of early rectal cancer, therefore interobserver variability needs to be reduced to decrease the number of patients that are over- or undertreated. & COPY; 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/). Show less
Background: The role of radiological staging and surveillance imaging is under debate for T1 colorectal cancer (CRC) as the risk of distant metastases is low and imaging may lead to the detection... Show moreBackground: The role of radiological staging and surveillance imaging is under debate for T1 colorectal cancer (CRC) as the risk of distant metastases is low and imaging may lead to the detection of incidental findings. Objective: The aim of this study was to evaluate the yield of radiological staging and surveillance imaging for T1 CRC. Methods: In this retrospective multicenter cohort study, all patients of 10 Dutch hospitals with histologically proven T1 CRC who underwent radiological staging in the period 2000-2014 were included. Clinical characteristics, pathological, endoscopic, surgical and imaging reports at baseline and during follow-up were recorded and analyzed. Patients were classified as high-risk T1 CRC if at least one of the histological risk factors (lymphovascular invasion, poor tumor differentiation, deep submucosal invasion or positive resection margins) was present and as low-risk when all risk factors were absent. Results: Of the 628 included patients, 3 (0.5%) had synchronous distant metastases, 13 (2.1%) malignant incidental findings and 129 (20.5%) benign incidental findings at baseline staging. Radiological surveillance was performed among 336 (53.5%) patients. The 5-year cumulative incidence of distant recurrence, malignant and benign incidental findings were 2.4% (95% confidence interval (CI): 1.1%-5.4%), 2.5% (95% CI: 0.6%-10.4%) and 18.3% (95% CI: 13.4%-24.7%), respectively. No distant metastatic events occurred among low-risk T1 CRC patients. Conclusion: The risk of synchronous distant metastases and distant recurrence in T1 CRC is low, while there is a substantial risk of detecting incidental findings. Radiological staging seems unnecessary prior to local excision of suspected T1 CRC and after local excision of low-risk T1 CRC. Radiological surveillance should not be performed in patients with low-risk T1 CRC. Show less
BackgroundThe role of radiological staging and surveillance imaging is under debate for T1 colorectal cancer (CRC) as the risk of distant metastases is low and imaging may lead to the detection of... Show moreBackgroundThe role of radiological staging and surveillance imaging is under debate for T1 colorectal cancer (CRC) as the risk of distant metastases is low and imaging may lead to the detection of incidental findings.ObjectiveThe aim of this study was to evaluate the yield of radiological staging and surveillance imaging for T1 CRC.MethodsIn this retrospective multicenter cohort study, all patients of 10 Dutch hospitals with histologically proven T1 CRC who underwent radiological staging in the period 2000–2014 were included. Clinical characteristics, pathological, endoscopic, surgical and imaging reports at baseline and during follow-up were recorded and analyzed. Patients were classified as high-risk T1 CRC if at least one of the histological risk factors (lymphovascular invasion, poor tumor differentiation, deep submucosal invasion or positive resection margins) was present and as low-risk when all risk factors were absent.ResultsOf the 628 included patients, 3 (0.5%) had synchronous distant metastases, 13 (2.1%) malignant incidental findings and 129 (20.5%) benign incidental findings at baseline staging. Radiological surveillance was performed among 336 (53.5%) patients. The 5-year cumulative incidence of distant recurrence, malignant and benign incidental findings were 2.4% (95% confidence interval (CI): 1.1%–5.4%), 2.5% (95% CI: 0.6%–10.4%) and 18.3% (95% CI: 13.4%–24.7%), respectively. No distant metastatic events occurred among low-risk T1 CRC patients.ConclusionThe risk of synchronous distant metastases and distant recurrence in T1 CRC is low, while there is a substantial risk of detecting incidental findings. Radiological staging seems unnecessary prior to local excision of suspected T1 CRC and after local excision of low-risk T1 CRC. Radiological surveillance should not be performed in patients with low-risk T1 CRC. Show less
Introduction Organ preservation is associated with superior functional outcome and quality of life (QoL) compared with total mesorectal excision (TME) for rectal cancer. Only 10% of patients are... Show moreIntroduction Organ preservation is associated with superior functional outcome and quality of life (QoL) compared with total mesorectal excision (TME) for rectal cancer. Only 10% of patients are eligible for organ preservation following short-course radiotherapy (SCRT, 25 Gy in five fractions) and a prolonged interval (4–8 weeks) to response evaluation. The organ preservation rate could potentially be increased by dose-escalated radiotherapy. Online adaptive magnetic resonance-guided radiotherapy (MRgRT) is anticipated to reduce radiation-induced toxicity and enable radiotherapy dose escalation. This trial aims to establish the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) of dose-escalated SCRT using online adaptive MRgRT.Methods and analysis The preRADAR is a multicentre phase I trial with a 6+3 dose-escalation design. Patients with intermediate-risk rectal cancer (cT3c-d(MRF-)N1M0 or cT1-3(MRF-)N1M0) interested in organ preservation are eligible. Patients are treated with a radiotherapy boost of 2×5 Gy (level 0), 3×5 Gy (level 1), 4×5 Gy (level 2) or 5×5 Gy (level 3) on the gross tumour volume in the week following standard SCRT using online adaptive MRgRT. The trial starts on dose level 1. The primary endpoint is the MTD based on the incidence of dose-limiting toxicity (DLT) per dose level. DLT is a composite of maximum one in nine severe radiation-induced toxicities and maximum one in three severe postoperative complications, in patients treated with TME or local excision within 26 weeks following start of treatment. Secondary endpoints include the organ preservation rate, non-DLT, oncological outcomes, patient-reported QoL and functional outcomes up to 2 years following start of treatment. Imaging and laboratory biomarkers are explored for early response prediction.Ethics and dissemination The trial protocol has been approved by the Medical Ethics Committee of the University Medical Centre Utrecht. The primary and secondary trial results will be published in international peer-reviewed journals. Show less
Background: During endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD), the normal mucosa is cut under constant optical control. We studied whether a positive horizontal resection margin after a complete en... Show moreBackground: During endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD), the normal mucosa is cut under constant optical control. We studied whether a positive horizontal resection margin after a complete en bloc ESD predicts local recurrence. Methods: In this European multicenter cohort study, patients with a complete en bloc colorectal ESD were selected from prospective registries. Cases were defined by a horizontal resection margin that was positive or indeterminate for dysplasia (HM1), whereas controls had a free resection margin (HM0). Low risk lesions with submucosal invasion (T1) and margins free of carcinoma were analyzed separately. The main outcome was local recurrence. Results: From 928 consecutive ESDs (2011–2020), 354 patients (40 % female; mean age 67 years, median follow-up 23.6 months), with 308 noninvasive lesions and 46 T1 lesions, were included. The recurrence rate for noninvasive lesions was 1/212 (0.5 %; 95 %CI 0.02 %–2.6 %) for HM0 vs. 2/96 (2.1 %; 95 %CI 0.57 %–7.3 %) for HM1. The recurrence rate for T1 lesions was 1/38 (2.6 %; 95 %CI 0.14 %–13.5 %) for HM0 vs. 2/8 (25 %; 95 %CI 7.2 %–59.1 %) for HM1. Conclusion: A positive horizontal resection margin after an en bloc ESD for noninvasive lesions is associated with a marginal nonsignificant increase in the local recurrence rate, equal to an ESD with clear horizontal margins. This could not be confirmed for T1 lesions. Show less
