Result of the implementation of multidisciplinary teams in rectal cancer

Wille‐Jørgensen, Peer; Sparre, Peter; Glenthøj, Anders; Holck, Susanne; Petersen, Lone Nørgaard; Harling, Henrik; Højen, H.; Bülow, Steffen

doi:10.1111/codi.12013

Cited by 56 publications

(37 citation statements)

References 13 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Surgery was performed 7-8 weeks after completion of chemoradiation. During the study period, multidisciplinary team meetings were implemented and all patients with rectal cancer discussed prior to surgery [14]. Patients in this study were not in an enhanced recovery programme.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Extralevator versus standard abdominoperineal excision for rectal cancer

Perdawood

Lund

2014

Tech Coloproctol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We found low rates of positive CRM after APE compared with the literature. ELAPE did not reduce these rates, and although the local recurrence rate was lower, this did not reach statistical significance. ELAPE has significantly reduced the rate of intraoperative bowel perforation and can optimize low rectal cancer surgery in selected patients. We found no significant differences between the two procedures regarding wound-related complications. A tailored approach and a larger trial with longer follow-up are needed to evaluate long-term results.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Extralevator versus standard abdominoperineal excision for rectal cancer

Perdawood

Lund

2014

Tech Coloproctol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…30 In general, these studies report higher rates of appropriate treatment, better adherence to clinical guidelines, and better survival. [31][32][33] In the current study, we have focused on these items as a measurement of the effects on patient care. We demonstrated that the administration of adjuvant chemotherapy in patients with high-risk stage II disease was significantly higher in those with SSR.…”

Section: Year Of Diagnosis Proportion Of Reports (%)mentioning

confidence: 99%

Improvement of Care in Patients With Colorectal Cancer: Influence of the Introduction of Standardized Structured Reporting for Pathology

Sluijter

Workum

Wiggers³

et al. 2019

JCO Clinical Cancer Informatics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

PURPOSE The use of standardized structured reporting (SSR) can improve communication between cancer specialists, which might improve clinical care; however, there are no reliable data on whether the introduction of SSR is associated with improvements in clinical outcome. PATIENTS AND METHODS We performed a retrospective cohort study in the Netherlands, including all patients with colorectal cancer (CRC) from 2009 to 2014. As a reference, cohorts of 2007 and 2008 were included. Data from the Netherlands Cancer Registry were used and combined with data from the Dutch Pathology Registry (PALGA) and the Dutch ColoRectal Audit. We tested the preformulated hypothesis that use of SSR improves the care of patients with CRC by improving the completeness of the pathology reports, the quality of the pathology evaluation, and patient outcomes with respect to treatment and survival. RESULTS We included 72,859 patients with CRC (23.8% reference, 32.9% SSR, and 43.3% narrative reports). Use of SSR increased over time, which resulted in more complete pathology reports (95.8% v 89.8%; P < .001). Risk assessment in stage II colon cancer was more adequate and resulted in an increased delivery of adjuvant therapy in patients with SSR (19.6% v 15.1%; P = .001). Risk of death for patients in the SSR group was significantly lowered (corrected hazard ratio, 0.94; 95% CI 0.90 to 0.97). CONCLUSION We demonstrate that use of SSR improved patient care in those with CRC by providing more complete reports of higher quality, which had significant effects on the delivery of adjuvant therapy and patient outcomes.

show abstract

“…Nach dem PRISMA-Schema wurden 10 relevante Studien zu Auswirkungen von MDT auf das Überleben von Patienten identifiziert, die im skandinavischen Raum [27,28], den Niederlanden [29], Großbritannien und Schottland [30][31][32], den USA [33] [27,28,35], und eine Studie berichtet differenzierte Ergebnisse für beide Erkrankungen [33]. Die Anzahl der Beobachtungen reicht von 263 [35] bis hin zu 31 890 Patienten [29].…”

Section: Systematischer Review Und Metaanalyseunclassified

Nutzenanalyse onkologischer Zentrenbildung im Bereich der Behandlung des kolorektalen Karzinoms

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The establishment of colorectal cancer centres is associated with positive outcomes for patients. However, the scarce evidence base underpins the need for additional studies to further examine the impact of centre building in colorectal cancer care. Cancer registries are a solid foundation for further research. Future requirements for oncological care can be derived from the predicted epidemiological development.

show abstract

Result of the implementation of multidisciplinary teams in rectal cancer

Abstract: There was an improved postoperative mortality but no other potential benefits for the patients were seen after the implementation of colorectal MDTs.

Cited by 56 publications

References 13 publications

Extralevator versus standard abdominoperineal excision for rectal cancer

Extralevator versus standard abdominoperineal excision for rectal cancer

Improvement of Care in Patients With Colorectal Cancer: Influence of the Introduction of Standardized Structured Reporting for Pathology

Nutzenanalyse onkologischer Zentrenbildung im Bereich der Behandlung des kolorektalen Karzinoms

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About