Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 4 de 4
Filtrar
1.
Eur J Cancer Care (Engl) ; 29(2): e13190, 2020 Mar.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31863608

RESUMEN

OBJECTIVES: According to new Dutch guidelines for rectal cancer, MRI-defined tumour stage determines whether preoperative radiotherapy is indicated. Therefore, we sought to evaluate if preoperative MRI accurately predicts the indication for neoadjuvant treatment in rectal cancer cases in daily practice according to the new Dutch guidelines. METHODS: Data for all rectal cancer patients who underwent mesorectal excision in our hospital, between January 2011 and January 2018 were collected retrospectively. We compared histopathologic outcome with tumour staging on preoperative MRI for patients who received no radiotherapy prior to resection or short-course radiotherapy directly followed by resection. RESULTS: Of 223 patients treated according to the old guidelines, 94% received neoadjuvant therapy. Of 301 patients treated according to the new guidelines, only 49% did. Under the old guidelines, MRI predicted lymph node metastases with a sensitivity of 74.2% and a specificity of 52.6%. With the new guidelines, sensitivity was 47.5% and specificity was 77.3%. The new guidelines resulted in 45% more patients not being exposed to disadvantages of radiotherapy, but 13% of all patients were undertreated. CONCLUSIONS: Concordance between clinical lymph node staging on preoperative MRI and histopathologic staging is limited, resulting in many rectal cancer patients not receiving adequate neoadjuvant therapy.


Asunto(s)
Ganglios Linfáticos/diagnóstico por imagen , Mesenterio/diagnóstico por imagen , Terapia Neoadyuvante/métodos , Guías de Práctica Clínica como Asunto , Proctectomía , Radioterapia/métodos , Neoplasias del Recto/diagnóstico por imagen , Neoplasias del Recto/radioterapia , Hospitales de Enseñanza , Humanos , Ganglios Linfáticos/patología , Metástasis Linfática/diagnóstico por imagen , Imagen por Resonancia Magnética , Mesenterio/cirugía , Estadificación de Neoplasias , Países Bajos , Selección de Paciente , Neoplasias del Recto/patología , Estudios Retrospectivos , Sensibilidad y Especificidad
2.
AJR Am J Roentgenol ; 210(6): 1240-1244, 2018 Jun.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-29570375

RESUMEN

OBJECTIVE: Since the implementation of new guidelines for rectal cancer in The Netherlands in April 2014, clinical stage as seen at preoperative MRI indicates whether neoadjuvant therapy is necessary before rectal cancer surgery. Therefore, the importance of correct MRI interpretation has increased. The aim of this study was to evaluate the completeness of MRI reports of rectal cancer and the effect of implementation of the new guidelines and standardized reporting on the completeness of these reports. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Data were collected from all patients who consecutively underwent rectal cancer surgery at one hospital between January 2011 and July 2017. Data were extracted from electronic patient records. RESULTS: The study included 492 MRI examinations. Before implementation of the new guidelines, a median of 4 of 10 items (interquartile range [IQR], 3-6 items) were described in each MRI report. After implementation of the new guidelines, the number of items described improved significantly (median, 7 items; IQR, 6-8 items; p < 0.001). Implementation of a standardized report led to further significant improvement (median, 9 items; IQR, 9-10 items; p < 0.001). The items scored most frequently were distance between the tumor and the anal verge (85.6%) and length of the tumor (87.6%). The items scored least were presence or absence of extramural venous invasion (21.1%) and morphologic features of the tumor (24.6%). CONCLUSION: Implementation of a standardized protocol and a standardized reporting system for MRI in preoperative staging of rectal cancer results in a more complete MRI report.


Asunto(s)
Registros Electrónicos de Salud/normas , Control de Formularios y Registros/normas , Imagen por Resonancia Magnética , Guías de Práctica Clínica como Asunto , Mejoramiento de la Calidad , Neoplasias del Recto/patología , Humanos , Estadificación de Neoplasias , Neoplasias del Recto/cirugía
3.
Surg Endosc ; 32(11): 4571-4578, 2018 11.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-29770881

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Radical resection by multivisceral resection of colorectal T4 tumours is important to reduce local recurrence and improve survival. Oncological safety of laparoscopic resection of T4 tumours is controversial. However, robot-assisted resections might have advantages, such as 3D view and greater range of motion of instruments. The aim of this study is to evaluate the initial results of robot-assisted resection of T4 rectal and distal sigmoid tumours. METHODS: This is a cohort study of a prospectively kept database of all robot-assisted rectal and sigmoid resections between 2012 and 2017. Patients who underwent a multivisceral resection for tumours appearing as T4 cancer during surgery were included. Rectal and sigmoid resections are routinely performed with the DaVinci robot, unless an indication for intra-operative radiotherapy exists. RESULTS: 28 patients with suspected T4 rectal or sigmoid cancer were included. Most patients (78%) were treated with neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (n = 19), short course radiotherapy with long waiting interval (n = 2) or chemotherapy (n = 1). En bloc resection was performed with the complete or part of the invaded organ (prostate, vesicles, bladder, abdominal wall, presacral fascia, vagina, uterus, adnex). In 3 patients (11%), the procedure was converted to laparotomy. Twenty-four R0-resections were performed (86%) and four R1-resections (14%). Median length of surgery was 274 min (IQR 222-354). Median length of stay was 6 days (IQR 5-11). Twelve patients (43%) had postoperative complications: eight (29%) minor complications and four (14%) major complications. There was no postoperative mortality. CONCLUSIONS: Robot-assisted laparoscopy seems to be a feasible option for the resection of clinical T4 cancer of the distal sigmoid and rectum in selected cases. Radical resections can be achieved in the majority of cases. Therefore, T4 tumours should not be regarded as a strict contraindication for robot-assisted surgery.


Asunto(s)
Colectomía , Neoplasias Colorrectales , Laparoscopía , Procedimientos Quirúrgicos Robotizados , Anciano , Estudios de Cohortes , Colectomía/efectos adversos , Colectomía/métodos , Colon Sigmoide/cirugía , Neoplasias Colorrectales/patología , Neoplasias Colorrectales/cirugía , Femenino , Humanos , Laparoscopía/efectos adversos , Laparoscopía/métodos , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Recurrencia Local de Neoplasia/prevención & control , Estadificación de Neoplasias , Países Bajos , Evaluación de Procesos y Resultados en Atención de Salud , Recto/cirugía , Procedimientos Quirúrgicos Robotizados/efectos adversos , Procedimientos Quirúrgicos Robotizados/métodos
4.
Eur J Surg Oncol ; 45(4): 597-605, 2019 04.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-30583821

RESUMEN

INTRODUCTION: To reduce the risk of local recurrence after rectal cancer surgery, neoadjuvant radiotherapy (RT) can be applied. However, as this causes morbidity and increases mortality, new Dutch guidelines withhold RT in low-risk patients. The aim of this study is to investigate if early local recurrence and one-year mortality in rectal cancer patients has changed since this more restricting indication for neoadjuvant RT was introduced in 2014. METHODS: This retrospective study included all consecutive patients treated with a mesorectal excision for primary rectal cancer in the Amphia Hospital, the Netherlands, between January 2011 and July 2016. Data were extracted from the electronic patient records. Survival data were collected from the Municipal Personal Records Database. RESULTS: Between 2011 and July 2016, 407 resections of primary rectal cancer without synchronic metastases were performed, 225 under the old guidelines and 182 under the new guidelines. Significantly fewer patients received neoadjuvant treatment under the new guidelines (89% vs 41%, p < 0.001). Both clinical tumour stage (p = 0.001) and clinical lymph node stage (p < 0.001) were lower in the new group, but no difference in pathologic TN-stage was found. There was no difference in one-year local recurrence (2.2% in both groups, p = 0.987), nor in one-year mortality (5.3% vs 3.8%, p = 0.479). CONCLUSION: Introducing a new guideline and thereby restricting the indication for neoadjuvant RT in rectal cancer patients did not increase the early local recurrence rate or decreased one-year mortality in our hospital.


Asunto(s)
Recurrencia Local de Neoplasia/epidemiología , Neoplasias del Recto/mortalidad , Neoplasias del Recto/radioterapia , Anciano , Femenino , Humanos , Metástasis Linfática , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Terapia Neoadyuvante/normas , Estadificación de Neoplasias , Países Bajos/epidemiología , Guías de Práctica Clínica como Asunto , Radioterapia Adyuvante/métodos , Radioterapia Adyuvante/normas , Neoplasias del Recto/patología , Neoplasias del Recto/cirugía , Estudios Retrospectivos , Tasa de Supervivencia
SELECCIÓN DE REFERENCIAS
DETALLE DE LA BÚSQUEDA