Standardization of the Definition and Surgical Management of Splenic Flexure Carcinoma by an International Expert Consensus Using the Delphi Technique: Room for Improvement?

BACKGROUND: Surgical management of splenic flexure carcinoma remains controversial. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to establish an expert international consensus on splenic flexure carcinoma management. DESIGN: A 3-round online-based Delphi study was conducted between September 2020 and April 2021. SETTING: The first round included 18 experts from 12 different countries. For the second and third rounds, each expert in the first round was asked to invite 2 more colorectal surgeons (n = 47). Out of 47 invited experts, 89% (n = 42) participated in the second and third rounds of the consensus. INTERVENTIONS: A total of 35 questions were created and sent via the online questionnaire tool. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Levels of recommendation based on voting concordance were graded as follows: more than 75% agreement was defined as strong, between 50% and 75% as moderate, and below 50% as weak. RESULTS: There was moderate consensus on the definition of splenic flexure (55%) as 10 cm from either side where the distal transverse colon turns into the proximal descending colon. Also, experts recommended an abdominopelvic CT scan plus intraoperative exploration (moderate consensus, 72%) for tumor localization and cancer registry. Segmental colectomy was the preferred technique for the management of splenic flexure carcinoma in the elective setting (72%). Moderate consensus was achieved on the technique of complete mesocolic excision and central vascular ligation principles for splenic flexure carcinoma (74%). Only strong consensus was achieved on the surgical approach for minimally invasive surgery (88%). LIMITATIONS: Subjective decisions are based on individual expert clinical experience and not evidence based. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first internationally conducted Delphi consensus study regarding splenic flexure carcinoma. The definition of splenic flexure remains ambiguous. To more effectively compare oncologic outcomes among different cancer registries, guidelines need to be developed to standardize each domain and avoid arbitrary definitions. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/C143 . ESTANDARIZACIN DE LA DEFINICIN Y MANEJO QUIRRGICO DEL CARCINOMA DE NGULO ESPLNICO ESTABLECIDO POR UN CONSENSO INTERNACIONAL DE EXPERTOS UTILIZANDO LA TCNICA DELPHI ESPACIO PARA MEJORAR: ANTECEDENTES:El tratamiento quirúrgico del cáncer de ángulo esplénico sigue siendo controvertido.OBJETIVO:Establecer un consenso internacional de expertos sobre el manejo del cáncer del ángulo esplénico.DISEÑO:Se condujo un estudio Delphi en línea de 3 rondas entre septiembre de 2020 y febrero de 2021.ESCENARIO:La primera ronda incluyó a 18 expertos de 12 países distintos. Para la segunda y tercera rondas, a cada experto de la primera ronda se le pidió que invitara a 2 cirujanos colorrectales más de su región (n = 47). De los 47 expertos invitados, el 89% (n = 42) participó en la segunda y tercera ronda del consenso.INTERVENCIONES:Se crearon y enviaron un total de 35 preguntas a través de la herramienta de cuestionario en línea.PRINCIPALES MEDIDAS DE RESULTADO:Los niveles de recomendación basados en la concordancia de votos fueron jerarquizados de la siguiente manera: más del 75% de acuerdo se definió como fuerte, entre 50 y 75% como moderado y por debajo del 50% como débil.RESULTADOS:Hubo un consenso moderado sobre la definición de ángulo esplénico (55%) como 10 cm desde cualquier lado donde el colon transverso distal se convierte en el colon descendente proximal. Así también, los expertos recomendaron la tomografía computarizada abdominopélvica más la exploración intraoperatoria (consenso moderado, 72%) para la localización del tumor y el registro del ángulo esplénico. La colectomía segmentaria fue la técnica preferida para el tratamiento del cáncer de ángulo esplénico en el caso de ser electivo (72%). Se logró un consenso moderado sobre la técnica de escisión completa del mesocolon y los principios de ligadura vascular a nivel central para el cáncer de ángulo esplénico (74%). Solo se logró un fuerte consenso sobre el abordaje quirúrgico para la cirugía mínimamente invasiva (88%).LIMITACIONES:Decisiones subjetivas basadas en la experiencia clínica de expertos individuales y no basadas en evidencia.CONCLUSIONES:Este es el primer estudio internacional de consenso Delphi realizado sobre el cáncer de ángulo esplénico. Si bien encontramos un consenso moderado sobre las modalidades de diagnóstico preoperatorio y el manejo quirúrgico, la definición de ángulo esplénico sigue siendo ambigua. Para comparar de manera más efectiva los resultados oncológicos entre diferentes registros de cáncer, se deben desarrollar pautas para estandarizar cada dominio y evitar definiciones arbitrarias. Consulte Video Resumen en http://links.lww.com/DCR/C143 . (Traducción-Dr. Osvaldo Gauto ).

Standardization of laparoscopic total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer: a structured international expert consensus.

OBJECTIVE: To establish a structured international expert consensus on a detailed technical description of the laparoscopic total mesorectal excision (TME). BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic TME is a common surgical approach for the treatment of rectal cancer, but there is little agreement on technical details and standards. METHODS: Sixty leading surgical experts from 5 different world regions with a median overall experience of 250 laparoscopic TME participated in this study. Four stages of mixed quantitative and qualitative consensus-finding methods were applied. (1) Semistructured expert interviews were independently analyzed by 2 assessors. (2) Consensus on the interview data was reached using reiterating questionnaires (Delphi method). (3) This was further refined in an interactive workshop. (4) Based on this meeting, a comprehensive text was drafted and final approval was sought by all experts. FINDINGS: Three theme categories were identified in 9 detailed interviews (anatomical landmarks, description of tissue retraction, and operating strategies). Following 2 rounds of a 54-item questionnaire, 29 items achieved very high agreement (A* ≥90%), 14 with good agreement (≥80%), 13 with moderate agreement (≥50%), and 18 with little or no agreement (<50%). In the workshop, areas of agreement were consolidated and conclusions were sought for those with less agreement. The final document was approved after 2 further rounds of surveys by all respondents. CONCLUSIONS: This detailed and agreed technical description of laparoscopic TME may have implications on training, assessment, quality control, and future research.