Pan-European survey on current treatment strategies in patients with upfront resectable colorectal liver metastases.

BACKGROUND: There is a lack of consensus on the definition of upfront resectability and use of perioperative systemic therapy for colorectal liver metastases (CRLM). This survey aimed to summarize the current treatment strategies for upfront resectable CRLM throughout Europe. METHODS: A survey was sent to all members of the European-African Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Association to gain insight into the current views on resectability and the use of systemic therapy for upfront resectable CRLM. RESULTS: The survey was completed by 87 surgeons from 24 countries. The resectability of CRLM is mostly based on the volume of the future liver remnant, while considering tumor biology. Thermal ablation was considered as an acceptable adjunct to resection in parenchymal-sparing CRLM surgery by 77 % of the respondents. A total of 40.2 % of the respondents preferred standard perioperative systemic therapy and 24.1 % preferred standard upfront local treatment. CONCLUSION: Among the participating European hepato-pancreato-biliary surgeons, there is a high degree of consensus on the definition of CRLM resectability. However, there is much variety in the use of adjunctive thermal ablation. Major variations persist in the use of perioperative systemic therapy in cases of upfront resectable CRLM, stressing the need for further evidence and a consensus.

Intersurgeon Variability in Local Treatment Planning for Patients with Initially Unresectable Colorectal Cancer Liver Metastases: Analysis of the Liver Expert Panel of the Dutch Colorectal Cancer Group.

BACKGROUND: Consensus on resectability criteria for colorectal cancer liver metastases (CRLM) is lacking, resulting in differences in therapeutic strategies. This study evaluated variability of resectability assessments and local treatment plans for patients with initially unresectable CRLM by the liver expert panel from the randomised phase III CAIRO5 study. METHODS: The liver panel, comprising surgeons and radiologists, evaluated resectability by predefined criteria at baseline and 2-monthly thereafter. If surgeons judged CRLM as resectable, detailed local treatment plans were provided. The panel chair determined the conclusion of resectability status and local treatment advice, and forwarded it to local surgeons. RESULTS: A total of 1149 panel evaluations of 496 patients were included. Intersurgeon disagreement was observed in 50% of evaluations and was lower at baseline than follow-up (36% vs. 60%, p < 0.001). Among surgeons in general, votes for resectable CRLM at baseline and follow-up ranged between 0-12% and 27-62%, and for permanently unresectable CRLM between 3-40% and 6-47%, respectively. Surgeons proposed different local treatment plans in 77% of patients. The most pronounced intersurgeon differences concerned the advice to proceed with hemihepatectomy versus parenchymal-preserving approaches. Eighty-four percent of patients judged by the panel as having resectable CRLM indeed received local treatment. Local surgeons followed the technical plan proposed by the panel in 40% of patients. CONCLUSION: Considerable variability exists among expert liver surgeons in assessing resectability and local treatment planning of initially unresectable CRLM. This stresses the value of panel-based decisions, and the need for consensus guidelines on resectability criteria and technical approach to prevent unwarranted variability in clinical practice.

Recurrent Colorectal Liver Metastases: Upfront Local Treatment versus Neoadjuvant Systemic Therapy Followed by Local Treatment (COLLISION RELAPSE): Study Protocol of a Phase III Prospective Randomized Controlled Trial.

PURPOSE: The objective of the COLLISION RELAPSE trial is to prove or disprove superiority of neoadjuvant systemic therapy followed by repeat local treatment (either thermal ablation and/or surgical resection), compared to repeat local treatment alone, in patients with at least one recurrent locally treatable CRLM within one year and no extrahepatic disease. METHODS: A total of 360 patients will be included in this phase III, multicentre randomized controlled trial. The primary endpoint is overall survival. Secondary endpoints are distant progression-free survival, local tumour progression-free survival analysed per patient and per tumour, systemic therapy-related toxicity, procedural morbidity and mortality, length of hospital stay, pain assessment and quality of life, cost-effectiveness ratio and quality-adjusted life years. DISCUSSION: If the addition of neoadjuvant systemic therapy to repeat local treatment of CRLM proves to be superior compared to repeat local treatment alone, this may lead to a prolonged life expectancy and increased disease-free survival at the cost of possible systemic therapy-related side effects. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level 1, phase III randomized controlled trial. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT05861505. May 17, 2023.

Incomplete patient information exchange and unnecessary repeat diagnostics during oncological referrals in the Netherlands: exploring the role of information exchange.

Data management in transmural care is complex. Without digital innovations like Health Information Exchange (HIE), patient information is often dispersed and inaccessible across health information systems between hospitals. The extent of information loss and consequences remain unclear. We aimed to quantify patient information availability of referred oncological patients and to assess its impact on unnecessary repeat diagnostics by observing all oncological multidisciplinary team meetings (MDTs) in a tertiary hospital. During 84 multidisciplinary team meetings, 165 patients were included. Complete patient information was provided in 17.6% (29/165, CI = 12.3-24.4) of patients. Diagnostic imaging was shared completely in 52.5% (74/141, CI = 43.9-60.9), imaging reports in 77.5% (100/129, CI = 69.2-84.2), laboratory results in 55.2% (91/165, CI = 47.2-62.8), ancillary test reports in 58.0% (29/50, CI = 43.3-71.5), and pathology reports in 60.0% (57/95, CI = 49.4-69.8). A total of 266 tests were performed additionally, with the main motivation not previously performed followed by inconclusive or insufficient quality of previous tests. Diagnostics were repeated unnecessarily in 15.8% (26/165, CI = 10.7-22.4) of patients. In conclusion, patient information was provided incompletely in majority of referrals discussed in oncological multidisciplinary team meetings and led to unnecessary repeat diagnostics in a small number of patients. Additional research is needed to determine the benefit of Health Information Exchange to improve data transfer in oncological care.

Survival Benefit of Repeat Local Treatment in Patients Suffering From Early Recurrence of Colorectal Cancer Liver Metastases.

BACKGROUND: A uniform treatment strategy for patients suffering from early recurrence after local treatment of CRLM is currently lacking. The aim of this observational cohort study was to assess the potential survival benefit of repeat local treatment compared to systemic therapy in patients suffering from early recurrence of CRLM. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients who developed recurrent CRLM within 12 months after initial local treatment with curative intent were retrospectively identified in Amsterdam University Medical Centers between 2009-2019. Differences in overall and progression-free survival among treatment strategies were assessed using multivariable Cox regression analyses. RESULTS: A total of 135 patients were included. Median overall survival of 41 months [range 4-135] was observed in patients who received repeat local treatment, consisting of upfront or repeat local treatment after neoadjuvant systemic therapy, compared to 24 months [range 1-55] in patients subjected to systemic therapy alone (adjusted HR = 0.42 [95%-CI: 0.25-0.72]; P = .002). Prolonged progression-free survival was observed after neoadjuvant systemic therapy followed by repeat local treatment, as compared to upfront repeat local treatment in patients with recurrent CRLM within 4 months following initial local treatment of CRLM (adjusted HR = 0.36 [95%-CI: 0.15-0.86]; P = .021). CONCLUSION: Patients with early recurrence of CRLM should be considered for repeat local treatment strategies. A multimodality approach, consisting of neoadjuvant systemic therapy followed by repeat local treatment, appeared favorable in patients with recurrence within 4 months following initial local treatment of CRLM.

A multidisciplinary neuro-oncological triage panel reduces the time to referral and treatment for patients with a brain tumor.

BACKGROUND: Regional collaboration and appropriate referral management are crucial in neuro-oncological care. Lack of electronic access to medical records across health care organizations impedes interhospital consultation and may lead to incomplete and delayed referrals. To improve referral management, we have established a multidisciplinary neuro-oncological triage panel (NOTP) with digital image exchange and determined the effects on lead times, costs, and time investment. METHODS: A prospective cohort study was conducted from February 2019 to March 2020. All newly diagnosed patients referred to Brain Tumor Center Amsterdam were analyzed according to referral pathway: (1) standard referral (SR), (2) NOTP. The primary outcome was lead time, defined as time-to-referral, time-to-treatment, and total time (median days [interquartile range]). Secondary outcomes were costs and time investment. RESULTS: In total, 225 patients were included, of whom 153 had SR and 72 NOTP referral. Patients discussed in the NOTP were referred more frequently for first neurosurgical consultation (44.7% vs 28.8%) or combined neurological and neurosurgical consultation (12.8% vs 2.5%, P = .002). Time-to-referral was reduced for NOTP referral compared to SR (1 [0.25-4] vs 6 [1.5-10] days, P < .001). Total time decreased from 27 [14-48] days for the standard group to 15 [12-38.25] days for the NOTP group (P = .040). Costs and time investment were comparable for both groups. CONCLUSION: Implementation of digital referral to a multidisciplinary NOTP is feasible and leads to more swift patient-tailored referrals at comparable costs and time investment as SR. This quality improvement initiative has the potential to improve collaboration and coordination of multidisciplinary care in the field of neuro-oncology.