Multidisciplinary tumor boards (MTBs) intend to increase the quality of cancer care. Research on the association of adherence to MTB recommendations with survival is limited. This study aims to determine the impact of adherence to MTB recommendations on survival in colorectal cancer patients.

This is a retrospective, observational study including patients diagnosed between 01.01.2014 and 31.12.2018. Electronic health records were reviewed to determine the adherence. Study endpoints were adherence rate, disease-free survival (DFS), and overall survival (OS). Follow-up was performed until 12.12.2023.

There was a significant difference in DFS (median DFS: 79 months [95% CI, 73-89] vs 22 months [95% CI, 17-87]) and OS (median OS: 78 months [95% CI, 75-86] vs 65 months [95% CI, 28-NR]) between the adherent group (n=406) versus the non-adherent group (n=52) (log-rank test, p<0.05). Performance status, stage and non-adherence were independent predictors of survival in the multivariate analysis (p<0.05 for all). The most common reason for non-adherence was patient preference (n=23).

While MTBs have become an indispensable part of clinical practice, adherence to MTB recommendations was crucial to achieve survival benefit in this study. Patient preference should be prospectively analyzed from a patient and caregiver perspective in future studies.

Multidisciplinary tumor boards (MTBs) facilitate decision-making among subspecialists in the care of oncology patients, but the mechanisms by which they enhance outcomes remain incompletely understood. Our aim was to measure the agreement between sarcoma MTBs and radiology reports' disease assessment and management recommendations. This single-center IRB-approved retrospective study evaluated cases presented at a weekly sarcoma MTB from 1 August 2020 to 31 July 2021. Cases without clinical notes, imaging studies, or radiology reports were excluded. The data collected included the patient's clinical status at the time of the MTB, the treatment response assessment by the MTB and radiologists (stable disease; partial response; complete response; progressive disease/recurrence), and the recommendations of the radiology reports and of the MTB. The agreement between the initial radiologist review and MTB on disease assessment and recommendations was analyzed using kappa statistics. In total, 283 cases met the inclusion criteria. Radiology reports provided recommendations in 34.3% of cases, which were adhered to by the ordering providers in 73.2% of cases. The agreement between MTBs and radiology reports was moderate in disease assessment (86.2% agreement; κ = 0.78; p < 0.0001) and negligible in recommendations (36% agreement; κ = 0.18; p < 0.0001). Radiologists were more likely to assign progressive disease/recurrence than MTBs (54.4% vs. 44.4%; p < 0.001) and to recommend short-term imaging follow-up more commonly than MTBs (46.4% vs. 21.7%; p < 0.001). At a tertiary care center, radiologists' isolated interpretations of imaging findings and management recommendations frequently differ from the MTB's consensus, reflecting the value of multidisciplinary discussions incorporating the patient's clinical status and the available treatment options into the final radiographic assessment.

Multidisciplinary clinics (MDCs) represent a potential platform through which high-quality, patient-centered care grounded in interdisciplinary expertise may be delivered for patients with colorectal cancer (CRC). This is increasingly important with the rapidly emerging diagnostic and treatment modalities as well as differential sequences of therapies available. MDCs have been reported to improve various outcomes across numerous non-colorectal cancers; however, data specific to the use of MDCs in CRC are more limited. In this report, we provide a narrative review of the different models of CRC MDCs in the literature and their associations with cancer care outcomes. We found significant heterogeneity in MDC operational logistics as well as reported outcomes across different practice settings. Further research is needed to better understand how MDCs may be optimally structured to meet the unique needs of patients with CRC and how they may affect CRC outcomes.

Colorectal cancer is the third most common cancer in the world. Surgery is mandatory to treat patients with colorectal cancer. Can colorectal cancer be treated in laparoscopy? Scientific literature has validated the oncological quality of laparoscopic approach for the treatment of patients with colorectal cancer. Randomized non-inferiority trials with good remote control have answered positively to this long-debated question. Early as 1994, first publications demonstrated technical feasibility and compliance with oncological imperatives and, as far as short-term outcomes are concerned, there is no difference in terms of mortality and post-operative morbidity between open and minimally invasive surgical approaches, but only longer operating times at the beginning of the experience. Subsequently, from 2007 onwards, long-term results were published that demonstrated the absence of a significant difference regarding overall survival, disease-free survival, quality of life, local and distant recurrence rates between open and minimally invasive surgery. In this editorial, we aim to summarize the clinical and technical aspects which, even today, make the use of open surgery relevant and necessary in the treatment of patients with colorectal cancer.

Stage IV colorectal cancer (CRC) often requires multidisciplinary approach. However, multimodal treatment options (receipt of > 1 type of treatment) may not be uniformly delivered across health systems. We characterized the association between center-level cancer center designation and receipt of multimodal treatment and survival.

The Texas Cancer Registry was used to identify patients diagnosed with stage IV CRC from 2004-2017. We identified those who received care at either: a National Cancer Institute-designated (NCI-D), an American College of Surgeons-Commission on Cancer-designated (ACS-D), or an undesignated facility. We used multivariable logistic regression and Cox regression for analysis to assess receipt of one or more treatment modality and 5-year overall survival.

Of 19,355 patients with stage IV CRC, 2955 (15%) received care at an NCI-D facility and 5871 (30%) received multimodal therapy. Both NCI-D (odds ratio [OR] 1.64; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.49-1.81) and ACS-D (OR 1.37; 95% CI 1.27-1.48) were associated with increased likelihood of multimodal therapy compared with undesignated centers. NCI-D also was associated with significantly improved survival (hazard ratio [HR] 0.74; 95% CI 0.70-0.78), although ACS-D was associated with a modest improvement in survival (HR 0.95; 95% CI 0.92-0.99). Receipt of multimodal therapy was strongly associated with improved survival (HR 0.61; 95% CI 0.59-0.63).

In patients with stage IV CRC, treatment at ACS-D and NCI-D facilities was associated with increased use of multimodality therapy and improved survival. However, only a small proportion of patients have access to these specialized centers, highlighting a need for expanded access to multimodal therapies at other centers.

Objectives: To explore the utilization, barriers, and factors associated with the targeted treatment of Chinese metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) patients. Methods: A total of 1,688 mCRC patients from 19 hospitals in 14 cities were enrolled from March 2020 to March 2021 using stratified, multistage cluster sampling. The use of targeted therapy and any barriers patients experienced were collected. Logistic regression analyses were conducted to identify the factors associated with initiating targeted treatment. Results: About 51.6% of the patients initiated targeted therapy, of whom 44.5%, 20.2%, and 35.2% started first-, second-, and third-line treatment, respectively. The most reported barriers were high medical costs and a lack of belief in the efficacy of targeted therapy. Patients treated in the general hospital, diagnosed at an older age, less educated, and who had a lower family income, no medical insurance, poor health-related quality of life, metastasis outside the liver/lung or systemic metastasis, a shorter duration of mCRC were less likely to initiate targeted therapy. Conclusion: Reduced medical costs and interventional education to improve public awareness could facilitate the use of targeted treatment for mCRC.

Multidisciplinary tumor board (MDT) discussion is standard practice in the management of Upper Gastrointestinal (UGI) cancers. However, poor adherence to MDT recommendations may account for the lack of improved oncological outcomes with MDTs. We aim to quantify adherence rates and compare outcomes between adherent and non-adherent patients.

We included all patients with potentially curable primary UGI carcinomas who were discussed at UGI MDT from 2017 to 2018. MDT recommendations were compared to actual treatment received. Oncological and survival outcomes were compared between both groups.

Amongst 153 patients, 64 (41.8%) were non-adherent to MDT recommendations. Reasons for non-adherence were patient refusal (50.0%), treatment-related complications (31.3%), disease factors (17.2%) and clinician decision (1.56%). Univariate analysis showed that non-adherent patients were older (71.6 vs 65.2 years, p < 0.001), with higher clinical stage at point of diagnosis (p = 0.028), pathological stage after resection (p < 0.001) and were more likely to be recommended for multimodal therapy. No significant factors were associated with non-adherence at multivariate analysis. Non-adherent patients had worse median overall survival (19.5 months) compared to adherent patients (not reached at follow-up) with both unmatched and propensity-score matched analysis. Patients who received only part of the intended adjuvant chemotherapy course had worse median overall survival and disease-free survival compared to patients who completed or did not initiate adjuvant chemotherapy.

Non-adherence to MDT recommendations was associated with advanced age and tumor stage, and potentially contributes to the worse oncological outcomes in a group of patients already predisposed to poor outcomes.

The aim of this study was to correlate and assess diagnostic accuracy of preoperative staging at multidisciplinary team meeting (MDT) against the original radiology reports and pathological staging in colorectal cancer patients.

A prospective observational study was conducted at two institutions. Patients with histologically proven colorectal cancer and available preoperative imaging were included. Preoperative tumor and nodal staging (cT and cN) as determined by the MDT and the radiology report (computed tomography [CT] and/or magnetic resonance imaging [MRI]) were recorded. Kappa statistics were used to assess agreement between MDT and the radiology report for cN staging in colon cancer, cT and cN in rectal cancer, and tumor regression grade (TRG) in patients with rectal cancer who received neoadjuvant therapy. Pathological report after surgery served as the reference standard for local staging, and AUROC curves were constructed to compare diagnostic accuracy of the MDT and radiology report.

A total of 481 patients were included. Agreement between MDT and radiology report for cN stage was good in colon cancer (k = .756, Confidence Interval (CI) 95% .686-.826). Agreement for cT and cN and in rectal cancer was very good (kw = .825, CI 95% .758-.892) and good (kw = .792, CI 95% .709-.875), respectively. In the rectal cancer group that received neoadjuvant therapy, agreement on TRG was very good (kw = .919, CI 95% .846-.993). AUROC curves using pathological staging indicated no difference in diagnostic accuracy between MDT and radiology reports for either colon or rectal cancer.

Preoperative colorectal cancer local staging was consistent between specialist MDT review and original radiology reports, with no significant differences in diagnostic accuracy identified.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Quantifying the impact of a multidisciplinary cancer case conference on patient outcome and care quality remains challenging.

We prospectively investigated the impact of our virtual multidisciplinary sarcoma case conference (VMSCC) on treatment plan in patients presented to the VMSCC from July to October 2020 (prospective cohort) and retrospectively in patients with metastatic or locally advanced high-grade soft-tissue sarcoma (STS) reviewed in the VMSCC in 2016 and 2017 (high-grade STS cohort). We also investigated the factors related to the nonadherence to the VMSCC-recommended plan in both cohorts.

In both cohorts, approximately 28% of the patients were referred to the VMSCC for review without a treatment plan. In significantly more cases, referring physicians outside of the sarcoma group did not have a plan formulated before the VMSCC review compared with the referring physicians within the sarcoma group. In 28.2% (prospective cohort) and 19.5% (high-grade STS cohort) of the patients, VMSCC recommended a different plan. The adherence to the VMSCC-recommended plan was 87.9% and 83.1%, respectively. The causes of the nonadherence were primarily due to disease progression or patient's decision against recommended therapy. The median overall survival for the high-grade STS cohort was 26 months.

VMSCC affected the treatment plan in approximately 50% of the patients in both cohorts. The median overall survival of the patients with high-grade STS reviewed by the VMSCC in our cohort is comparable with the literature.

Although guidelines recommend adjuvant chemotherapy for stage III colon cancer patients, many patients do not receive adjuvant chemotherapy. The aim of this study was to identify reasons for guideline non-adherence and assess the effect on patient outcomes in a multicenter cohort of stage III colon cancer patients who received surgery plus adjuvant chemotherapy or surgery alone.

Patients who underwent surgery between 2007 and 2017 were included. Reasons for non-adherence were determined. Propensity score analyses with inverse probability weighting were performed to adjust for confounding factors. Cox proportional hazards regression and risk stratified analyses were performed to assess the association of guideline adherence and other potential predictors with recurrence free survival (RFS).

Data of 575 patients were included of whom 61% received adjuvant chemotherapy. In 87 of 222 patients (39%) who did not receive adjuvant chemotherapy, no reason was documented. Only age was predictive for receiving chemotherapy. Patients who received adjuvant chemotherapy had longer RFS (HR 0.42, 95%CI 0.29-0.62, p < 0.001). High T- and N-stage were associated with poorer RFS HR 2.0 (95%CI 1.58-2.71, p < 0.001) and HR 2.19 (95%CI 1.60-2.99, p < 0.001) respectively. Risk groups were identified with distinct prognosis and treatment effect and a nomogram is presented to visualize individualized RFS differences.

This study shows considerable variation in guideline adherence to adjuvant chemotherapy and poor documentation on reasons for non-adherence. Optimizing adherence and gaining insight in reasons for non-adherence is advocated as this can lead to significant RFS benefit, especially in patients with high T-and N-stage tumors.

Conventional clinical guidelines recommend that at least 12 lymph nodes should be removed during radical rectal cancer surgery to achieve accurate staging. The current application of neoadjuvant therapy has changed the number of lymph node dissection.

To investigate factors affecting the number of lymph nodes dissected after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy in locally advanced rectal cancer and to evaluate the relationship of the total number of retrieved lymph nodes (TLN) with disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS).

A total of 231 patients with locally advanced rectal cancer from 2015 to 2017 were included in this study. According to the American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC)/Union for International Cancer Control (UICC) tumor-node-metastasis (TNM) classification system and the NCCN guidelines for rectal cancer, the patients were divided into two groups: group A (TLN ≥ 12, n = 177) and group B (TLN < 12, n = 54). Factors influencing lymph node retrieval were analyzed by univariate and binary logistic regression analysis. DFS and OS were evaluated by Kaplan-Meier curves and Cox regression models.

The median number of lymph nodes dissected was 18 (range, 12-45) in group A and 8 (range, 2-11) in group B. The lymph node ratio (number of positive lymph nodes/total number of lymph nodes) (P = 0.039) and the interval between neoadjuvant therapy and radical surgery (P = 0.002) were independent factors of the TLN. However,TLN was not associated with sex, age, ASA score, clinical T or N stage, pathological T stage, tumor response grade (Dworak), downstaging, pathological complete response, radiotherapy dose, preoperative concurrent chemotherapy regimen, tumor distance from anal verge, multivisceral resection, preoperative carcinoembryonic antigen level, perineural invasion, intravascular tumor embolus or degree of differentiation. The pathological T stage (P < 0.001) and TLN (P < 0.001) were independent factors of DFS, and pathological T stage (P = 0.011) and perineural invasion (P = 0.002) were independent factors of OS. In addition, the risk of distant recurrence was greater for TLN < 12 (P = 0.009).

A shorter interval to surgery after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy for rectal cancer under indications may cause increased number of lymph nodes harvested. Tumor shrinkage and more extensive lymph node retrieval may lead to a more favorable prognosis.

Multidisciplinary care (MDC) yields proven benefits for patients with cancer, although it may be underused in the complex management of head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC).

To characterize the patterns of MDC in the treatment of HNSCC among elderly patients in the US.

This nationwide, population-based, retrospective cohort study used Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)-Medicare linked data from January 1, 1991, to December 31, 2011, to identify patients 66 years or older diagnosed with head and neck cancer and determine the dates of diagnosis, oncology consultations, treatment initiation, and speech therapy evaluation in addition to MDC completion. Multidisciplinary care was defined in a stage-dependent manner: localized disease necessitated consultations with radiation and surgical oncologists, and advanced-stage disease also included a medical oncology consultation, all before definitive treatment. Data were analyzed between December 2016 and September 2020.

Rates of MDC across all subsites of head and neck cancer as measured by the presence of an evaluation for each oncologist on the MDC team and its effect on treatment initiation.

This cohort study assessed 28 293 patients with HNSCC (mean [SD] age, 75.1 [6.6] years; 67% male; 87% White) from the SEER-Medicare linked database. The HNSCC subsites included larynx (40%), oral cavity (30%), oropharynx (21%), hypopharynx (7%), and nasopharynx (2%). Overall, the practice of MDC significantly increased over time, from 24% in 1991 to 52% in 2011 (P < .001). For patients with localized (stage 0-II) tumors, 60% received care in the multidisciplinary setting, whereas 28% of those with advanced-stage disease did. A total of 18 181 patients (64%) were treated with initial definitive nonsurgical therapy across all stages. Regardless of stage and subsite, few patients (2%) underwent evaluation by a speech-language pathologist before definitive therapy. Multidisciplinary care prolonged the time to initiation of definitive treatment by 11 days for localized disease and 10 days for advanced disease.

This cohort study found that most elderly patients with localized HNSCC received MDC, whereas few patients with advanced-stage disease received such care, although a significant proportion received adjuvant therapy. Multidisciplinary care may prolong time to initiation of definitive treatment with an uncertain impact. Consultation with a speech-language pathologist before definitive therapy was rare.

Multidisciplinary cancer clinics deliver streamlined care and facilitate collaboration between specialties. We described patient volume and specialty service utilization, including surgery, of a multidisciplinary colorectal cancer clinic established at a tertiary care academic institution.

We conducted a retrospective observational cohort study of adult patients with colorectal adenocarcinoma from 2012 to 2017. We performed a descriptive analysis of patient volume, percentage of rectal cancer patients, and the number of patients who saw and received surgery, chemotherapy, and radiation each year.

Over 5 years, 1711 patients were served at the multidisciplinary clinic. Patient volume increased 37%, from n = 228 (annualized) to n = 312. The percentage of rectal cancer patients increased from 29% in 2013 to 42% in 2017. The highest rate of utilization was for surgery; 792 (46%) patients had surgery at the multidisciplinary clinic institution, and 510 (30%) received chemotherapy there. Out of 635 rectal cancer patients, 114 (18%) received radiation there.

Over the five-year experience of a colorectal cancer-focused multidisciplinary clinic, overall patient volume increased by 37%. Over the study period, 63% of patients seen at the multidisciplinary clinic ultimately received at least one treatment modality at the clinic institution. Overall, the clinic's establishment resulted in the increased referral of complex patients.

National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines are the most comprehensive and widely used standard for clinical care, financial reimbursements and quality improvement initiatives in oncology. We studied the distribution of categories of evidence and consensus (EC) in the guidelines for the common cancers in the United States. We evaluated the EC categories in staging, therapy and surveillance recommendations in 2019 guidelines and compared them with the same in 2010. The latest 2019 version of NCCN guidelines were obtained. The definitions for various categories of EC used were, Category 1 (high level evidence, uniform consensus), Category 2A (lower level of evidence [LOE], uniform consensus), Category 2B (lower LOE, no uniform consensus but with no major disagreement) and Category 3 (any LOE, major disagreement). We compared our results with previously published results from 2010 guidelines. Total number of recommendations increased by 77% from 1023 (2010) to 1818 (2019). Of the 1818 recommendations, Category 1, 2A, 2B and 3 EC were 7%, 87%, 6% and 0%, respectively, while in 2010 they were 6%, 83%, 10% and 1%. Breast (30%), lung (10%) and kidney (10%) cancer had the highest proportions of Category 1 therapeutic recommendations in their respective guidelines. No Category 1 recommendations were found in screening or surveillance guidelines or in pancreatic and uterine cancer guidelines. Recommendations in 2019 NCCN guidelines are largely Category 2A (lower levels of evidence, uniform expert opinion), unchanged from the previous study in 2010.

Rectal cancer treatment has evolved during the past 40 years with the use of a standardized surgical technique for tumour resection: total mesorectal excision. A dramatic reduction in local recurrence rates and improved survival outcomes have been achieved as consequences of a better understanding of the surgical oncology of rectal cancer, and the advent of adjuvant and neoadjuvant treatments to compliment surgery have paved the way for a multidisciplinary approach to disease management. Further improvements in imaging techniques and the ability to identify prognostic factors such as tumour regression, extramural venous invasion and threatened margins have introduced the concept of decision-making based on preoperative staging information. Modern treatment strategies are underpinned by accurate high-resolution imaging guiding both neoadjuvant therapy and precision surgery, followed by meticulous pathological scrutiny identifying the important prognostic factors for adjuvant chemotherapy. Included in these strategies are organ-sparing approaches and watch-and-wait strategies in selected patients. These pathways rely on the close working of interlinked disciplines within a multidisciplinary team. Such multidisciplinary forums are becoming standard in the treatment of rectal cancer across the UK, Europe and, more recently, the USA. This Review examines the essential components of modern-day management of rectal cancer through a multidisciplinary team approach, providing information that is essential for any practising colorectal surgeon to guide the best patient care.

Management of rectal cancer has become more complex with multimodality therapy (neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy and surgery) and this has led to the need to organize multidisciplinary teams. The aim of this study was to report on the planning, implementation and evaluation of an integrated care pathway for neoadjuvant treatment of middle and lower rectal cancer.

This was a cross-sectional post-implementation study that was carried out at a public university cancer center.

The Framework for Program Evaluation in Public Health of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) was used to identify resources and activities; link results from activities and outcomes with expected goals; and originate indicators and outcome measurements.

The logic model identified four activities: stakeholders' engagement, clinical pathway development, information technology improvements and training programs; and three categories of outcomes: access to care, effectiveness and organizational outcomes. The measurements involved 218 patients, among whom 66.3% had their first consultation within 15 days after admission; 75.2% underwent surgery < 14 weeks after the end of neoadjuvant treatment and 72.7% completed the treatment in < 189 days. There was 100% adherence to the protocol for the regimen of 5-fluorouracil and leucovorin.

The logic model was useful for evaluating the implementation of the integrated care pathways and for identifying measurements to be made in future outcome studies.

Although adjuvant endocrine therapy confers a survival benefit among females with hormone receptor (HR)-positive breast cancer, the effectiveness of this treatment among males with HR-positive breast cancer has not been rigorously investigated.

To investigate trends, patterns of use, and effectiveness of adjuvant endocrine therapy among men with HR-positive breast cancer.

This retrospective cohort study identified patients in the National Cancer Database with breast cancer who had received treatment from 2004 through 2014. Inclusion criteria for the primary study cohort were males at least 18 years old with nonmetastatic HR-positive invasive breast cancer who underwent surgery with or without adjuvant endocrine therapy. A cohort of female patients was also identified using the same inclusion criteria for comparative analyses by sex. Data analysis was conducted from October 1, 2017, to December 15, 2017.

Receipt of adjuvant endocrine therapy.

Patterns of adjuvant endocrine therapy use were assessed using multivariable logistic regression analyses. Association between adjuvant endocrine therapy use and overall survival was assessed using propensity score-weighted multivariable Cox regression models.

The primary study cohort comprised 10 173 men with HR-positive breast cancer (mean [interquartile range] age, 66 [57-75] years). The comparative cohort comprised 961 676 women with HR-positive breast cancer (mean [interquartile range] age, 62 [52-72] years). The median follow-up for the male cohort was 49.6 months (range, 0.1-142.5 months). Men presented more frequently than women with HR-positive disease (94.0% vs 84.3%, P < .001). However, eligible men were less likely than women to receive adjuvant endocrine therapy (67.3% vs 79.0%; OR, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.58-0.63; P < .001). Treatment at academic facilities (odds ratio, 1.13; 95% CI, 1.02-1.25; P = .02) and receipt of adjuvant radiotherapy (odds ratio, 2.83; 95% CI, 2.55-3.15; P < .001) or chemotherapy (odds ratio, 1.20; 95% CI, 1.07-1.34; P < .001) were statistically significantly associated with adjuvant endocrine therapy use in men. A propensity score-weighted analysis indicated that relative to no use, adjuvant endocrine therapy use in men was associated with improved overall survival (hazard ratio, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.63-0.77; P < .001).

There is a sex disparate underuse of adjuvant endocrine therapy among men with HR-positive breast cancer despite the use of this treatment being associated with improved overall survival. Further research and interventions may be warranted to bridge gaps in care in this population.

Multidisciplinary clinics integrate the expertise of several specialties to provide effective treatment to patients. This exposure is especially relevant in the management of muscle-invasive bladder cancer (MIBC), which requires critical input from urology, radiation oncology, and medical oncology, among other supportive specialties.

In the present study, we sought to catalog the different styles of multidisciplinary care models used in the management of MIBC and to identify barriers to their implementation. We surveyed providers from academic and community practices regarding their currently implemented multidisciplinary care models, available resources, and perceived barriers using the Bladder Cancer Advocacy Network and the Genitourinary Medical Oncologists of Canada e-mail databases.

Of the 101 responding providers, most practiced at academic institutions in the United States (61%) or Canada (29%), and only 7% were from community practices. The most frequently used model was sequential visits on different days (57%), followed by sequential same-day (39%) and concurrent (1 visit with all providers; 22%) models. However, most practitioners preferred a multidisciplinary clinic involving sequential same-day (41%) or concurrent (26%) visits. The lack of clinic space (58%), funding (41%), staff (40%), and time (32%) were the most common barriers to implementing a multidisciplinary clinic.

Most surveyed practitioners at academic centers use some form of a multidisciplinary care model for patients with MIBC. The major barriers to more integrated multidisciplinary clinics were limited time and resources rather than a lack of provider enthusiasm. Future studies should incorporate patient preferences, further evaluate practice patterns in community settings, and assess their effects on patient outcomes.

Managed Flow C20 (MFC20) is an integrated care pathway (ICP) for rectal cancer implemented at a public teaching hospital. This study aims to quantify resource utilization and estimate direct costs and outcomes associated with the use of this ICP.

We evaluated consecutive rectal cancer patients treated with neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (nCRT) followed by surgery, comparing the period before the ICP implementation (Pre-MFC20 group) and after (MFC20 group). We assessed times between treatment steps and quantified the resources utilized, as well as their costs.

There were 112 patients in the Pre-MFC20 group and 218 in the MFC20 group. The mean treatment intervals were significantly shorter in the MFC20 group - from the first medical consultation to nCRT (48.3 vs. 87.5 days; P < 0.001); and from nCRT to surgery (14.8 vs. 23.0 weeks; P < 0.001) - as was the mean total treatment time (192.0 vs. 290.2 days; P < 0.001). Oncology consultations, computed tomography, MRI, and radiotherapy sessions were utilized more frequently in the Pre-MFC20 group (P < 0.001). The median per-patient cost was US$11 180.92 in the Pre-MFC20 group, compared with US$10 412.88 in the MFC20 group (P = 0.125). Daily hospital charges and consultations were the major determinants of the total cost of the treatment. There was no statistical difference in overall survival in the time periods examined.

Implementation of a rectal cancer ICP reduced all treatment intervals and promoted rational utilization of oncology consultations and imaging, without increment in per-patient costs or detrimental effects in overall survival.

Preoperative neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (NACR) is used to reduce tumor size for easier resection or improved resectability rates. Considering the difficulties regarding health insurance and health resources in China, an evidence-based short-course neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy with surgery to cure patients was performed. This study compared the postoperative effects between short-course neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy and surgery and surgery without neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy.The current retrospective study was based on a rectal cancer database, including 274 patients diagnosed with rectal cancer between January 2014 and October 2016. Data were analyzed with respect to curative rate, postoperative recovery indicators (times to nasogastric tube, urinary catheter, and drainage tube removal and times to first oral feeding and passing of flatus postsurgery), chemoradiotherapy-related indicators [white blood cell count (WBC) and carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) levels], and adverse effects indicators, evaluated according to Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events Version 4.0.There was no significant difference between the combined therapy and surgery groups (P > .05) in terms of radical resection rates and the times to urinary catheter removal and passing flatus (P > .05). Statistically significant differences (P < .05) in terms of earlier time for removal of the nasogastric and drainage tubes and time to first oral feeding were observed in the combined therapy group. The decreases in WBC and CEA levels in the combined therapy group were significantly greater than those in the surgery group 1 week after surgery (P < .05); after 1 month, the CEA decrease in the combined therapy group was significantly greater than that in the surgery group (P < .05). More patients in the combined therapy group experienced vomiting, indigestion, dehydration, oral mucositis, sensory neuritis, and alopecia compared with those in the surgery group 1 week after surgery (P < .05); after 1 month, only the incidence of alopecia was higher in the combined therapy group (P < .05).The combined therapy group demonstrated earlier postoperative recovery compared with the surgery group. Short-course neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy with surgery may lead to postoperative treatment-related adverse effects of varying degrees; however, these adverse effects eventually improve with time.

Randomized trials in breast cancer have demonstrated the clinical benefits of adjuvant endocrine therapy (AET) in preventing recurrence and death. The examination of concordance with AET guidelines at a national level as a measure of quality of care is important.

To investigate temporal trends and factors related to receipt of AET for breast cancer.

This retrospective cohort study included 981 729 women with breast cancer in the National Cancer Database from January 1, 2004, to December 31, 2013. Women with stages I to III breast cancer who received all or part of their treatment at the reporting institution were included in the analysis.

Temporal changes in AET receipt (estimating the annual percentage change) and AET practice patterns (using logistic regression) and the effect of AET guideline concordance on survival of women with hormone receptor-positive (HR+) breast cancer (using the multivariable Cox proportional hazards model).

Of the 981 729 eligible patients (mean [SD] age, 60.8 [13.3] years), 818 435 had HR+ and 163 294 had HR-negative (HR-) cancer. Among the patients with HR+ cancer, receipt of AET increased over time, from 69.8% in 2004 to 82.4% in 2013. Among patients with HR- cancer, receipt decreased from 5.2% in 2004 to 3.4% in 2013. Hospital-level adherence (≥80% of patients with HR+ cancer received AET) increased from 40.2% in 2004 to 69.2% in 2013. Receipt of AET varied significantly by age (lower in patients ≥80 years), race (lower in African American and Hispanic participants), geographic location (lower in West South Central, Mountain, and Pacific census regions), and receptor status (lower in patients with estrogen receptor-negative and progesterone receptor-positive cancer). Surgery and radiotherapy were the factors most significantly associated with appropriate AET receipt (only 45.0% in patients who received lumpectomy without radiotherapy). Receipt of AET was associated with a 29% relative risk reduction in mortality. Based on this effectiveness estimate, if all patients with HR+ cancer received AET, approximately 14 630 lives would have been saved over 10 years.

From 2004 to 2013, underuse and misuse of AET have decreased for patients with breast cancer, but optimal use has not been achieved, and significant variation in care remains. The involvement of surgery and radiotherapy were among the most significant factors associated with optimal use, which underscores the benefits of team-based care to support guideline-concordant therapy.

We aimed to identify the effects of physical activity and body composition on colorectal polyp recurrence in patients with previous colorectal cancer. A total of 300 patients were selected randomly from the colorectal cancer survivor cohort of Severance Hospital (Seoul, Korea). Patients reported various recreational physical activities and received surveillance colonoscopy. Body composition was measured with a body composition analyzer. We compared patients who exercised for at least 1 hour/week (active) with those who exercised less frequently or not at all (sedentary). The active exercise group (n = 203) had a lower recurrence of advanced adenoma than the sedentary group (n = 97; 6.4% vs. 14.4%, P = 0.023). The prevalence of advanced adenoma recurrence decreased in an exercise dose-dependent manner (Ptrend = 0.019). In multivariate logistic analysis, the independent factors associated with advanced polyp recurrence were body fat mass [OR, 7.601; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.583-36.485; P = 0.011] and active exercise (OR, 0.340; 95% CI, 0.143-0.809; P = 0.015). In Cox proportional hazards models, body fat mass (HR, 5.315; 95% CI, 1.173-24.083; P = 0.030) and active exercise (HR, 0.367; 95% CI, 0.162-0.833; P = 0.017) were the independent factors associated with cumulative advanced adenoma recurrence. In conclusion, exercising for at least 1 hour/week and low body fat mass were found to be related to lower rates of colorectal polyp recurrence in the surveillance of colorectal cancer survivors. Cancer Prev Res; 10(8); 478-84. ©2017 AACR.

Objective The influence of cancer boards with respect to the treatment decisions regarding chemotherapy remains to be elucidated. In the present study, we investigated the cases that presented at our institutional cancer boards, to assess the effect of cancer boards on the treatment decisions regarding chemotherapy. Methods Data from the cancer boards at Yamagata University Hospital, Yamagata, Japan, were collected. Along with data from the clinical records, the details of the discussions and the chosen plan of treatment of the cancer boards were analyzed. Results From February 2010 to February 2014, 1,541 cases were discussed at our cancer boards. Of these, 811 cases (52.6%) involved discussions about chemotherapy. Of those 811 cases, recommendations were made to alter the treatment plans for 189 cases (23.3%). The reasons for discouraging chemotherapy varied; however, 29/45 (64.4%) cases involved discouragement for the following reasons: old age, a comorbid condition, the physical (performance) status, or insufficient evidence to administer chemotherapy. Eighty-six patients were referred to the medical oncology department through the cancer boards. Conclusion Our results showed that cancer boards have a great influence on the treatment decisions regarding chemotherapy and the prompt referral of cases to medical oncologists as necessary. In terms of future research, we will evaluate the effect of cancer boards on the prognosis and outcomes of cases using the institutional cancer registry.

Rising cancer incidence, the cost of cancer pharmaceuticals and the introduction of the Cancer Drugs Fund in England, but not other United Kingdom(UK) countries means evidence of 'postcode prescribing' in cancer is important. There have been no systematic reviews considering access to cancer drugs by geographical characteristics in the UK.

Studies describing receipt of cancer drugs, according to healthcare boundaries (e.g. cancer network [UK]) were identified through a systematic search of electronic databases and grey literature. Due to study heterogeneity a meta-analysis was not possible and a narrative synthesis was performed.

8,780 unique studies were identified and twenty-six included following a systematic search last updated in 2015. The majority of papers demonstrated substantial variability in the likelihood of receiving chemotherapy between hospitals, health authorities, cancer networks and UK countries (England and Wales). After case-mix adjustment, there was up to a 4-5 fold difference in chemotherapy utilisation between the highest and lowest prescribing cancer networks. There was no strong evidence that rurality or distance travelled were associated with the likelihood of receiving chemotherapy and conflicting evidence for an effect of travel time.

Considerable variation in chemotherapy prescribing between healthcare boundaries has been identified. The absence of associations with natural geographical characteristics (e.g. rurality) and receipt of chemotherapy suggests that local treatment habits, capacity and policy are more influential.

The management of cancer varies across its type, stage, and natural history. This necessitates involvement of a variety of individuals and groups across a number of provider types. Evidence from other fields suggests that a team-based approach helps organize and optimize tasks that involve individuals and groups, but team effectiveness has not been fully evaluated in oncology-related care.

We undertook a systematic review of literature published between 2009 and 2014 to identify studies of all teams with clear membership, a comparator group, and patient-level metrics of cancer care. When those teams included two or more people with specialty training relevant to the care of patients with cancer, we called them multidisciplinary care teams (MDTs). After reviews and exclusions, 16 studies were thoroughly evaluated: two addressing screening and diagnosis, 11 addressing treatment, two addressing palliative care, and one addressing end-of-life care. The studies included a variety of end points (eg, adherence to quality indicators, patient satisfaction with care, mortality).

Teams for screening and its follow-up improved screening use and reduced time to follow-up colonoscopy after an abnormal screen. Discussion of cases within MDTs improved the planning of therapy, adherence to recommended preoperative assessment, pain control, and adherence to medications. We did not see convincing evidence that MDTs affect patient survival or cost of care, or studies of how or which MDT processes and structures were associated with success.

Further research should focus on the association between team processes and structures, efficiency in delivery of care, and mortality.

Multidisciplinary team (MDT) conferences have been introduced into standard cancer care, though evidence that it benefits the patient is weak. We used the national Swedish Rectal Cancer Register to evaluate predictors for case discussion at a MDT conference and its impact on treatment.

Of the 6760 patients diagnosed with rectal cancer in Sweden between 2007 and 2010, 78% were evaluated at a MDT. Factors that influenced whether a patient was discussed at a preoperative MDT conference were evaluated in 4883 patients, and the impact of MDT evaluation on the implementation of preoperative radiotherapy was evaluated in 1043 patients with pT3c-pT4 M0 tumours, and in 1991 patients with pN+ M0 tumours.

Hospital volume, i.e. the number of rectal cancer surgical procedures performed per year, was the major predictor for MDT evaluation. Patients treated at hospitals with < 29 procedures per year had an odds ratio (OR) for MDT evaluation of 0.15. Age and tumour stage also influenced the chance of MDT evaluation. MDT evaluation significantly predicted the likelihood of being treated with preoperative radiotherapy in patients with pT3c-pT4 M0 tumours (OR 5.06, 95% CI 3.08-8.34), and pN+ M0 (OR 3.55, 95% CI 2.60-4.85), even when corrected for co-morbidity and age.

Patients with rectal cancer treated at high-volume hospitals are more likely to be discussed at a MDT conference, and that is an independent predictor of the use of adjuvant radiotherapy. These results indirectly support the introduction into clinical practice of discussing all rectal cancer patients at MDT conferences, not least those being treated at low-volume hospitals.

Although monitoring of cytogenetic/molecular responses to therapy in chronic myelogenous leukemia (CML) facilitates superior outcomes, less than one half of CML patients are monitored using published evidence-based guidelines. Barriers to physician adherence with guidelines are unknown.

An anonymous survey was mailed to 515 hematologist-oncologists in New Jersey and Indiana exploring attitudes toward monitoring guidelines.

Ninety-six physicians (19%) responded-89% in community practice, 83% with more than 10 years of experience, and 92% caring for CML patients. Eighty-four percent self-reported using CML monitoring guidelines, 14% were familiar with but did not adopt guidelines and 2% were unfamiliar. Eighty-four percent performed molecular monitoring quarterly as recommended; 6% did not perform molecular monitoring at all during the first year. Guidelines were considered evidence based by 98%, but only 54% strongly considered them easy to find; only 51% strongly felt they addressed all aspects of disease management. Patient resource barriers were a significant deterrent toward implementation with 30% citing high costs. Physician resources, including lack of time to search guidelines, limited use in one fifth. Despite 90% believing an online database helpful, between one third and one half did not feel that additional training, professional society endorsements, or availability of expert consultations would encourage use.

Significant barriers to adherence with evidence-based CML guidelines exist. Resource barriers, lack of familiarity and lack of agreement restrict adoption, but efforts to facilitate use are not desired. Multifaceted educational strategies, including automated computerized reminders at point of care, are needed to improve quality outcomes in CML.

Treatment decision making for patients with rectal cancer is complex and optimal preoperative assessment is important to ensure patients receive appropriate and high-quality care. Therefore, our objective was to develop an evidence-based, multidisciplinary guideline to assist physicians treating rectal cancer to ensure that preoperative assessment is optimal.

A multidisciplinary expert panel of physicians who treat rectal cancer was selected as members of the Cancer Care Ontario Preoperative Assessment for Rectal Cancer Guideline Development Group (GDG). This group initially met to identify important clinical questions with respect to optimisation of preoperative assessment in patients diagnosed with rectal cancer. A systematic review, specific to each of these clinical questions, was then conducted using MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane Library databases. The GDG met at regular intervals to review the evidence and to develop guidelines to address each of the clinical questions.

The GDG identified seven important clinical questions with respect to the optimisation of preoperative assessment in patients diagnosed with rectal cancer. The clinical questions pertained to: (i) investigations required to assess distant metastasis (one question); (ii) imaging for local staging of rectal cancer (five questions); (iii) multidisciplinary cancer conference (MCC) (one question); (iv) restaging-magnetic resonance imaging (one question). The systematic reviews related to these clinical questions yielded 31 articles that were abstracted and reviewed by the GDG. Based on the systematic reviews, a guideline was developed containing seven recommendations that were either adapted from existing guidelines, based on review of the evidence or by consensus when evidence was limited.

A set of seven recommendations have been developed in order to optimise pretreatment assessment in patients with rectal cancer by promoting evidence-based practice. These guidelines are based on the best available evidence and have been peer reviewed by two independent multidisciplinary expert panels for relevance and validity.

In many jurisdictions geographic and resource constraints are barriers to multidisciplinary cancer conference review of all patients undergoing cancer surgery. We piloted an internet-based collaborative cancer conference (I-CCC) for rectal cancer to overcome these barriers in the LHIN4 region of Ontario (population 1.4 million).

Surgeons practicing at one of 10 LHIN4 hospitals were invited to participate in I-CCC reviews. A secure internet audio and visual link facilitated review of cross-sectional images and case details. Before review, referring surgeons detailed initial treatment plans. Main treatment options included preoperative radiation, straight to surgery, and plan uncertain. Changes were noted following I-CCC review from initial to final treatment plan. Major changes included: redirect patient to preoperative radiation from straight to surgery or plan uncertain; and redirect patient to straight to surgery from preoperative radiation or plan uncertain. Minor changes included: change type of neoadjuvant therapy; request additional tests (e.g., pelvic MRI); or formal MCC review.

From November 2010 to May 2012, 20 surgeons (7 academic and 13 community) submitted 57 rectal cancer cases for I-CCC review. After I-CCC review, 30 of 57 (53 %) cases had treatment plan changes: 17 major and 13 minor. No patient or tumour factors predicted for treatment plan change.

An I-CCC for rectal cancer in a large geographic region was feasible and influenced surgeon treatment recommendations in 53 % of cases. Because no factor predicted for treatment plan change, it is likely prudent that all rectal cancer patients undergo some form of collaborative review.

Tumor boards have become an integral part of high-quality cancer care, but in general, patients are not directly involved. To overcome this weakness, we established an interdisciplinary counseling service for renal malignancies where 4 specialists talked to the patient at once. We evaluated this approach from the patients' and physicians' perspective.

For 3 months, we assessed organizational and clinical data. Within a standardized telephone interview lasting for 14 ± 8 minutes, we explored the patients' view 1 week after counseling. A focus group contributed the physicians' perspective. Costs and revenues were calculated from the hospital's perspective.

We included 52 consecutive patients aged 62 ± 10 years. Patients' initiative for a "second opinion" triggered 37% of all appointments. Patients had localized (52%) and systemic (48%) disease presenting with primary diagnosis (48%), relapse (27%), or under continuous therapy (25%). The treatment strategy was changed significantly in 16 of 30 (53%) patients reporting a specific external opinion. The most frequent changes in recommendation were nephron-sparing surgery instead of radical nephrectomy in 8 cases and divergent judgments on restaging causing changes in systemic treatment in 6 cases. We successfully interviewed 43 of 52 patients. Overall, patients rated the consultation as very positive and only 1 patient (2%) was dissatisfied. Patients rated the quality of interpersonal interaction as very positive and said they would recommend the consultation service to others. Disease state was not associated with ratings. Physicians expressed a very positive opinion, highlighting the patients' benefit and very constructive case discussions. Nevertheless, they report remarkable efforts concerning time investment and effective coordination of medical experts. We estimated a deficit of 39 Euro per patient given the German health care system. There might be relevant secondary positive economic effects for the hospital such as recommendations from one patient to another leading to acquisition of additional patients.

Patient involvement in multidisciplinary tumor boards is feasible and well regarded by patients and physicians likewise. By stimulating interdisciplinary collaboration, the interdisciplinary counseling service improves patient satisfaction and clinical decision making. The interdisciplinary counseling service corrected half of the external treatment plans for better guideline adherence. These positive effects come at the price of higher resource utilization. (www.germanctr.de, number DRKS00003279).

In most jurisdictions, a minority of patients are discussed at multidisciplinary cancer conference (MCC) despite recommendations for such reviews. We assessed the impact of MCC review of gastrointestinal (GI) cancers at a stand-alone cancer center.

Patient data were prospectively collected on consecutive cases presented at a GI MCC during a 6-month period. Original treatment plans were collected confidentially before presentation and compared to post-MCC treatment plans. We defined changes in management plans as major (change in treatment modality) or minor (testing prior to original plan).

A total of 149 cases were evaluated: 115 upper GI (gastric/small bowel-10 %, liver-32 %, pancreaticobiliary-36 %), and 34 lower GI (23 %). Reasons for presentation were: questions regarding progression/metastases (44 %), management (26 %), diagnosis (21 %), pathology (15 %), and resectability (7 %). Physicians were certain of their original plans being the final recommendations in 84 % (n = 125). Change in management was recommended in 36 %; 72 % were major and 28 % were minor. Patients underwent all recommended treatments at our institution in 77 % of cases, a portion in 5 %, and no recommended treatments in 18 %. On multivariate analysis, physician degree of certainty for original management plan was not predictive of a change in management plan (p = 0.61).

Although certainty of prediscussion treatment plan is high, changes in treatment recommendations occurred in more than one-third of patients after GI MCC. This prospective study demonstrates the value of MCC in GI cancer sites, even at a stand-alone cancer center.

Laparoscopic and endoluminal surgical techniques have evolved and allowed improvements in the methods for treating benign and malignant gastrointestinal diseases. To date, only case reports have been reported on the application of a laparo-endoscopic approach for resecting gastric submucosal tumors (SMT). In this study, we aimed to evaluate the efficacy, safety, and oncologic outcomes of a laparo-endoscopic transgastric approach to resect tumors that would traditionally require either a laparoscopic or open surgical approach. Herein, we present the largest single institution series utilizing this technique for the resection of gastric SMT in North America.

We performed a retrospective review of a prospectively collected patient database. Patients who presented for evaluation of gastric SMT were offered this surgical procedure and informed consents were obtained for participation in the study.

Fourteen patients were included in this study between August/2010 and January/2013. Eight (8) patients (57.1 %) were female and the median age was 56 years (range 29-78). Of the 14 cases, 8 patients (57.1 %) underwent laparo-endoscopic resection of SMTs with transgastric extraction, 5 patients (35.7 %) had conversions to traditional laparoscopic surgery, and 1 patient (7.2 %) was abandoned intraoperatively. The median operative time for this cohort was 80 min (range 35-167). Ten patients (71.4 %) had GISTs, 3 (21.4 %) had leiomyomas, and 1 (7.1 %) had schwannoma. There were no intraoperative complications. Two patients had postoperative staple line bleeding that required repeat endoscopy. The median hospital stay was 1 day (range 1-6) and there were no postoperative mortalities. At 12-month follow-up visit, only one GIST patient (10 %) had tumor recurrence.

Our experience suggests that this surgical approach is safe and efficient in the resection of gastric SMT with transgastric extraction. This study found no intraoperative complications and optimal oncologic outcomes during the follow-up period. Minimally invasive surgical approaches are emerging as a valid and potentially better approach for resecting malignancies; however, continued investigation is underway to further validate this data.

Multidisciplinary teams (MDTs) are considered the gold standard of cancer care in many healthcare systems, but a clear definition of their format, scope of practice and operational criteria is still lacking. The aims of this review were to assess the impact of MDTs on patient outcomes in cancer care and identify their objectives, organisation and ability to engage patients in their care. We conducted a systematic review of the literature in the Medline database. Fifty-one peer-reviewed papers were selected from November 2005 to June 2012. MDTs resulted in better clinical and process outcomes for cancer patients, with evidence of improved survival among colorectal, head and neck, breast, oesophageal and lung cancer patients in the study period. Also, it was observed that MDTs have been associated with changes in clinical diagnostic and treatment decision-making with respect to urological, pancreatic, gastro-oesophageal, breast, melanoma, bladder, colorectal, prostate, head and neck and gynaecological cancer. Evidence is consistent in showing positive consequences for patients' management in multiple dimensions, which should encourage the development of structured multidisciplinary care, minimum standards and exchange of best practices.

Population level data on colorectal cancer (CRC) management in Australia are lacking. This study assessed broad level patterns of care and concordance with guidelines for CRC management at the population level using linked administrative data from both the private and public health sectors across South Australia. Disparities in CRC treatment were also explored.

Linking information from the South Australian Cancer Registry, hospital separations, radiotherapy services and hospital-based cancer registry systems provided data on the socio-demographic, clinical and treatment characteristics for 4641 CRC patients, aged 50-79 years, diagnosed from 2003 to 2008. Factors associated with receiving site/stage-specific treatments (surgery, chemotherapy and radiotherapy) and overall concordance with treatment guidelines were identified using Poisson regression analysis.

About 83% of colon and 56% of rectal cancer patients received recommended treatment. Provision of neo-adjuvant/adjuvant therapies may be less than optimal. Radiotherapy was less likely among older patients (prevalence ratio 0.7, 95% confidence interval 0.5-0.8). Chemotherapy was less likely among older patients (0.7, 0.6-0.8), those with severe or multiple co-morbidities (0.8, 0.7-0.9), and those from rural areas (0.9, 0.8-1.0). Overall discordance with treatment guidelines was more likely among rectal cancer patients (3.0, 2.7-3.3), older patients (1.6, 1.4-1.8), those with multiple co-morbid conditions (1.3, 1.1-1.4), and those living in rural areas (1.2, 1.0-1.3).

Greater emphasis should be given to ensure CRC patients who may benefit from neo-adjuvant/adjuvant therapies have access to these treatments.

Long non-coding RNAs (lncRNAs) are recently identified regulators in tumorigenesis and tumour progression. BRAF-activated lncRNA (BANCR) is overexpressed in melanoma and has a potential functional role in melanoma cell migration. However, little is known concerning the role of BANCR in the development of colorectal cancer (CRC). The current study examined BANCR expression in 60 pairs of CRC and matched adjacent normal tissues. The quantitative polymerase chain reaction results showed that BANCR was frequently overexpressed in cancer tissues and this overexpression was found to significantly correlate with lymph node metastasis and tumour stage. The ectopic expression of BANCR contributed to the migration of human CRC Caco-2 cells, whereas knockdown of BANCR inhibited the migration of the HCT116 cells in vitro. Further investigation into the underlying mechanisms responsible for the migratory effects revealed that BANCR induced the epithelial-mesenchymal transition (EMT) through an MEK/extracellular signal-regulated kinase-dependent mechanism as treatment with the MEK inhibitor, U0126 decreased migration and reversed the EMT in the BANCR-overexpressed HCT116 cells. These results revealed the significance of BANCR in the molecular etiology of CRC and implied the potential application of BANCR in the therapeutic treatment of CRC.

Multidisciplinary tumor boards involve various providers (e.g., oncology physicians, nurses) in patient care. Although many community hospitals have local tumor boards that review all types of cases, numerous providers, particularly in rural areas and smaller institutions, still lack access to tumor boards specializing in a particular type of cancer (e.g., hematologic). Videoconferencing technology can connect providers across geographic locations and institutions; however, virtual tumor board (VTB) programs using this technology are uncommon. In this study, we evaluated the feasibility of a new VTB program at the University of North Carolina (UNC) Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, which connects community-based clinicians to UNC tumor boards representing different cancer types. Methods included observations, interviews, and surveys. Our findings suggest that participants were generally satisfied with the VTB. Cases presented to the VTB were appropriate, sufficient information was available for discussion, and technology problems were uncommon. UNC clinicians viewed the VTB as a service to patients and colleagues and an opportunity for clinical trial recruitment. Community-based clinicians presenting at VTBs valued the discussion, even if it simply confirmed their original treatment plan or did not yield consensus recommendations. Barriers to participation for community-based clinicians included timing of the VTB and lack of reimbursement. To maximize benefits of the VTB, these barriers should be addressed, scheduling and preparation processes optimized, and appropriate measures for evaluating impact identified.

The aim of the study was to evaluate the pretreatment workup of patients referred to our tertiary care center with low-grade lymphoma for compliance with National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines. This was a retrospective chart review. The study included all new patients with low-grade lymphoma who were diagnosed and treated at our center from January 1, 2005, to December 30, 2011. All the major facets of pretreatment workup were examined, including bone marrow biopsy, lactate dehydrogenase, hepatitis B screening, performance status of the patient, and diagnostic radiological studies. A total of 53 new patients were identified, of whom 36 (68%) had pretreatment workup and treatment at our center. The median age at diagnosis was 67. Fifty-four percent of the patients had bone marrow biopsy done. Radiological diagnostic studies were conducted in 97% of the patients. Hepatitis B screening was done in 19% of the total patients and 25% of the patients who received rituximab. Lactate dehydrogenase levels were checked in 72% of the patients. A significant deviation from the National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines for low-grade lymphoma pretreatment workup was observed for hepatitis B screening. Measures to ensure that patients have hepatitis B screening before rituximab were implemented. Studies such as these help to improve patient care.