European journal of cancer : official journal for European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) [and] European Association for Cancer Research (EACR)
-
Care for patients with colon and rectal cancer has improved in the last 20years; however considerable variation still exists in cancer management and outcome between European countries. Large variation is also apparent between national guidelines and patterns of cancer care in Europe. Therefore, EURECCA, which is the acronym of European Registration of Cancer Care, is aiming at defining core treatment strategies and developing a European audit structure in order to improve the quality of care for all patients with colon and rectal cancer. In December 2012, the first multidisciplinary consensus conference about cancer of the colon and rectum was held. The expert panel consisted of representatives of European scientific organisations involved in cancer care of patients with colon and rectal cancer and representatives of national colorectal registries. ⋯ Multidisciplinary consensus on key diagnostic and treatment issues for colon and rectal cancer management using the Delphi method was successful. This consensus document embodies the expertise of professionals from all disciplines involved in the care for patients with colon and rectal cancer. Diagnostic and treatment algorithms were developed to implement the current evidence and to define core treatment guidance for multidisciplinary team management of colon and rectal cancer throughout Europe.
-
The peritoneal cavity must be oncologically considered as an organ in its own right and peritoneal metastases (PM) must be treated with the same curative intent (and the same results) as liver metastases. The package combining complete cytoreductive surgery (CCRS) (treating the visible disease) plus hyperthermic intraoperative peritoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) (treating the remaining non-visible disease) achieves cure in many patients. Twenty years of publication allow us to assemble sufficient background information and data to point out the good and poor indications for CCRS+HIPEC. ⋯ Frantz's tumours). HIPEC can be used in the prophylactic setting to prevent PM in patients with a high risk of developing PM, and the first results of the 'second-look' approach are promising. Finally, CCRS+HIPEC appear to be indispensable tools in the oncologist's armentarium.
-
Randomized Controlled Trial Multicenter Study
Aflibercept versus placebo in combination with fluorouracil, leucovorin and irinotecan in the treatment of previously treated metastatic colorectal cancer: prespecified subgroup analyses from the VELOUR trial.
The antiangiogenic agent aflibercept (ziv-aflibercept in the United States) in combination with 5-fluorouracil, leucovorin and irinotecan (FOLFIRI) significantly improved survival in a phase III study of patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) previously treated with an oxaliplatin-based regimen. In the present analysis, outcomes were evaluated in prespecified subgroups to assess the consistency of the treatment effect. ⋯ The benefits of aflibercept in combination with FOLFIRI in patients with mCRC previously treated with oxaliplatin were maintained across the specified patient subgroups, including in patients with or without prior bevacizumab treatment.
-
Randomized Controlled Trial
A randomised trial of electro-acupuncture for arthralgia related to aromatase inhibitor use.
Arthralgia is a common and debilitating side-effect experienced by breast cancer patients receiving aromatase inhibitors (AIs) and often results in premature drug discontinuation. ⋯ Compared to usual care, EA produced clinically important and durable improvement in arthralgia related to AIs in breast cancer patients, and SA had a similar effect. Both EA and SA were safe.
-
Review
A systematic review of cost-effectiveness of monoclonal antibodies for metastatic colorectal cancer.
Metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) imposes a substantial health burden on patients and society. In recent years, advances in the treatment of mCRC have mainly resulted from the introduction of monoclonal antibodies (MoAbs). However, the application of these MoAbs considerably increases treatment costs. The objective of this article is to review and assess the economic evidence of MoAB treatment in mCRC. A systematic literature review was conducted and cost-effectiveness (CE) as well as cost-utility-studies were identified. For this, Medline, Embase, SciSearch, Cochrane, and nine other databases were searched from 2000 through February 2013 for full-text publications. The quality of the studies was assessed via a validated assessment tool (Quality of Health Economic Studies (QHES)). A total of 843 publications were screened. Of those, 15 studies involving the MoAbs bevacizumab, cetuximab and panitumumab met all inclusion criteria. Four studies analysed the CE of first-line treatment with bevacizumab and nine the CE of cetuximab in subsequent treatment lines. Two studies dealt with the CE of panitumumab. The analysis of sequential regimes and the direct comparison of two MoABs were analysed by only one study each. The quality of the included studies was high with the exception of one study. ⋯ The treatment with bevacizumab, cetuximab and panitumumab is mainly considered to be not cost-effective in patients with mCRC. However, testing for Kirsten ras oncogene (KRAS) mutation prior to the treatment with cetuximab or panitumumab is found to be clearly cost-effective compared to no testing. Future research should focus on the CE of first-line treatment with cetuximab or panitumumab and studies on upcoming agents like regorafenib and aflibercept.