Pan-Canadian consensus recommendations for proton beam therapy access in Canada.

PURPOSE: Proton Beam Therapy (PBT)is a treatment option for select cancer patients. It is currently not available in Canada. Assessment and referral processes for out-of-country treatment for eligible patients vary by jurisdiction, leading to variability in access to this treatment for Canadian cancer patients. The purpose of this initiative was to develop a framework document to inform consistent and equitable PBT access for appropriate patients through the creation of pan-Canadian PBT access consensus recommendations. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A modified Delphiprocess was used to develop pan-Canadian recommendations with input from 22 PBT clinical and administrative experts across all provinces, external peer-review by provincial cancer and system partners, and feedback from a targeted community consultation. This was conducted by electronic survey and live discussion. Consensus threshold was set at 70% agreement. RESULTS: Fourconsensus rounds resulted in a final set of 27 recommendations divided into three categories: patient eligibility (n = 9); program level (n = 10); and system level (n = 8). Patient eligibility included: anatomic site (n = 4), patient characteristics (n = 3), clinical efficacy (n = 2). Program level included: regulatory and staff requirements (n = 5), equipment and technologies (n = 4), quality assurance (n = 1). System level included: referral process (n = 5), costing, budget impact and quality adjusted life years (n = 2), eligible patient estimates (n = 1). Recommendations were released nationally in June 2021 and distributed to all 43 cancer programs in Canada. CONCLUSION: A pan-Canadian consensus-building approach was successful in creating an evidence-based, peer-reviewed suite of recommendations thatsupportapplication of consistent clinical criteria to inform treatment options, facility set-up and access to high quality proton therapy.

Laparoscopic versus open surgery for the treatment of colorectal cancer: a literature review and recommendations from the Comité de l'évolution des pratiques en oncologie.

BACKGROUND: Adoption of the laparoscopic approach for colorectal cancer treatment has been slow owing to initial case study results suggesting high recurrence rates at port sites. The use of laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer still raises a number of concerns, particularly with the technique's complexity, learning curve and longer duration. After exploring the scientific literature comparing open and laparoscopic surgery for the treatment of colorectal cancer with respect to oncologic efficacy and shortterm outcomes, the Comité de l'évolution des pratiques en oncologie (CEPO) made recommendations for surgical practice in Quebec. METHODS: Scientific literature published from January 1995 to April 2012 was reviewed. Phase III clinical trials and meta-analyses were included. RESULTS: Sixteen randomized trials and 10 meta-analyses were retrieved. Analysis of the literature confirmed that for curative treatment of colorectal cancer, laparoscopy is not inferior to open surgery with respect to survival and recurrence rates. Moreover, laparoscopic surgery provides short-term advantages, including a shorter hospital stay, reduced analgesic use and faster recovery of intestinal function. However, this approach does require a longer operative time. CONCLUSION: Considering the evidence, the CEPO recommends that laparoscopic resection be considered an option for the curative treatment of colon and rectal cancer; that decisions regarding surgical approach take into consideration surgeon experience, tumour stage, potential contraindications and patient expectations; and that laparoscopic resection for rectal cancer be performed only by appropriately trained surgeons who perform a sufficient volume annually to maintain competence.

CONTEXTE: L'adoption de la laparoscopie pour traiter le cancer colorectal se fait lentement à cause des résultats des premières études de cas qui indiquent des taux élevés de récidive aux sites d'intervention. La laparoscopie pour traiter le cancer colorectal soulève toujours de nombreuses préoccupations, particulièrement en raison de la complexité de la technique, de la courbe d'apprentissage, et de la durée de la chirurgie. Après avoir étudié des publications scientifiques comparant l'efficacité oncologique et les résultats à court terme de la laparoscopie à ceux de la chirurgie ouverte pour le traitement du cancer colorectal, le Comité de l'évolution des pratiques en oncologie (CEPO) a formulé des recommandations pour la pratique chirurgicale au Québec. MÉTHODES: Une revue des écrits scientifiques publiés entre janvier 1995 et avril 2012 a été effectuée. Seuls les essais cliniques de phase III et les méta-analyses ont été répertoriés. RÉSULTANTS: Seize essais randomisés et 10 méta-analyses ont été retenus. L'analyse des publications a confirmé que pour le traitement curatif du cancer colorectal, la laparoscopie n'est pas inférieure à la chirurgie ouverte pour ce qui est des taux de survie et de récidive. La laparoscopie offre de plus des avantages à court terme, y compris une hospitalisation de moins longue durée, une réduction de l'usage d'analgésiques et un rétablissement plus rapide de la fonction intestinale. Cette intervention prend toutefois plus de temps. CONCLUSIONS: Compte tenu des données probantes, le CEPO recommande d'envisager la résection laparoscopique comme technique curative possible du cancer colorectal et que les décisions sur la méthode chirurgicale tiennent compte de l'expérience du chirurgien, du stade de la tumeur, des contre-indications possibles et des attentes du patient. Dans le cas de la résection laparoscopique du cancer du rectum, le CEPO recommande qu'elle ne soit pratiquée que par des chirurgiens ayant reçu la formation nécessaire et qui pratiquent suffisamment d'interventions par année pour maintenir leur compétence.

Adjuvant treatment for endometrial cancer: literature review and recommendations by the Comité de l'évolution des pratiques en oncologie (CEPO).

OBJECTIVE: Despite the very good prognosis of endometrial cancer, a number of patients with localized disease relapse following surgery. Therefore, various adjuvant therapeutic approaches have been studied. The objective of this review is to evaluate the efficacy and safety of neoadjuvant and adjuvant therapies in patients with resectable endometrial cancer and to develop evidence-based recommendations. METHODS: A review of the scientific literature published between January 1990 and June 2012 was performed. The search was limited to published phase III clinical trials and meta-analyses evaluating the efficacy of neoadjuvant or adjuvant therapies in patients with endometrial carcinoma or carcinosarcoma. A total of 23 studies and five meta-analyses were identified. RESULTS: The selected literature showed that in patients with a low risk of recurrence, post-surgical observation is safe and recommended in most cases. There are several therapeutic modalities available for treatment of endometrial cancers with higher risk of recurrence, including vaginal brachytherapy, external beam radiotherapy, chemotherapy, or a combination of these. CONCLUSIONS: Considering the evidence available to date, the CEPO recommends the following: (1)post-surgical observation for most patients with a low recurrence risk; (2)adjuvant vaginal brachytherapy for patients with an intermediate recurrence risk; (3)adjuvant pelvic radiotherapy with or without vaginal brachytherapy for patients with a high recurrence risk; addition of adjuvant chemotherapy may be considered as an option for selected patients (excellent functional status, no significant co-morbidities, poor prognostic factors); (4)adjuvant chemotherapy and pelvic radiotherapy with or without brachytherapy and para-aortic irradiation for patients with advanced disease;

Influence of Hoxa5 on p53 tumorigenic outcome in mice.

Hox genes encode transcription factors of crucial importance in the pattern formation of a large spectrum of species. Several studies have now proposed a role for these developmental genes in cancer biology. It has been suggested that HOXA5 possesses growth-suppressive properties through activation of p53 expression in human breast tissue. To assess the genetic cooperation that may exist between Hoxa5 and p53 in tumorigenesis, we generated Hoxa5/p53 compound mutant mice. The presence of Hoxa5 null alleles increased the susceptibility of p53(-/-) mice to develop tumors with a high prevalence for thymic lymphoma, suggesting that the loss of function of the two genes collaborate in tumor formation. To extend our analysis to mammary tumorigenesis, we performed Hoxa5/p53 whole mammary gland transplantations into wild-type hosts. In the p53(-/-) background, the presence of one Hoxa5 mutant allele had no impact on mammary tumor formation. In contrast, the complete loss of Hoxa5 function influenced the tumorigenic outcome of p53(+/-) mammary glands. However, the collaborative nature of this interaction did not depend on the transcriptional regulation of p53 by Hoxa5. Altogether, our data establish that Hoxa5 and p53 cooperate in mammary tumorigenesis in vivo.