RESUMO
AIMS: 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. MATERIALS AND METHODS: 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. RESULTS: 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. CONCLUSIONS: 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.